text:
Arizona School
Sample Study
Arizona Department of Education
Lisa Graham Keegan,
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Arizona School Construction Costs
Sample Study
September 1996
During the 1996 Legislative Session, I asked the legislature to establish a School Debt
and Construction Cost Study Committee for three primary reasons:
1. To examine the use of debt by schools
2. To determine school construction cost ranges
3. To suggest construction management guidelines to help schools save money
This request was supported by various construction experts in the business community,
including the entire membership of Greater Phoenix Leadership, to give policy-makers
pertinent information to assist in solving the inequities identified by the Arizona Supreme
Court in the Roosevelt School District Case.
Although the Study Committee was not formed, I felt it was still imperative to provide
some facts about school construction from a statewide perspective. The Arizona
Department of Education hired an intern with school construction experience to compile
information on construction costs per pupil, costs per square foot, and to review the
findings of the 1995 Arizona School Facilities Review conducted by MGT of America, Inc.
for the Joint Committee on Capital Review.
The following document contains a convenience sample of all new school construction
projects over $500,000, bid between January 1995 and June 1, 1996. The individual
cost elements of twenty-eight construction projects are compared. A status report on the
emergency capital needs identified by MGT is also included. In addition, based upon
current practices, recommendations for improvement and savings in the school
construction process are provided.
I would like to thank Patrice Conley for her hard work on this project, as well as the
school districts, architects, and contractors for their cooperation.
We must dispel commonly held myths about school construction with facts, if we are to
attain a long-term solution of equitable access to funding on a per-pupil basis. I believe
the information contained in this report is another step toward dispelling those myths.
Lisa Graham ~eegan
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Arizona Department of Education
September 1996
EXECUTnTE SUMMARY
The following are highlights from an in-depth study of new schools under construction in Arizona during
1995-96. The sample was taken from a list of projects bid between January 1, 1995 and June 1, 1996,
provided by the Dodge Plan Room, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies. The study's purpose was to
research actual costs statewide for funding projections and recommendations to the Arizona Department of
Education. Additional information was collected through telephone surveys with district staff, architects and
contractors involved in the current projects.
The sample consists of twenty-eight schools (Exhibit C).
Student capacity ranges from 200 students in Tuba City (K-6) to 1600 students in the Amphitheater (K-8)
school. The average number of students is 726, with seventeen of the twenty-eight schools being built
for the range of 500 to 850 students.
The size of the buildings ranges from 27,130 sf for Project MORE accommodation high school in Tucson
to the 185,500 sf of R. B. Wilson Elementary school in Amphitheater School District. The average
school in our sample is 72,896 sf.
Some of the schools are unique because of purpose or construction. Drachman, Westwood and Madison
Elementary #2 are lower primary schools. Project MORE is an accommodation high school. Frontier
Elementary in Payson is a dome school. (Exhibit H)
The cost of building a new school ranges from $2,680,055 for the Payson school to Amphitheater's
$13,962,270, with the average school costing $5,911,716.
The average sf per student was 104. The sflstudent in this study range from 73 sflstudent at Westwood
Elementary (K-3) to 240 sflstudent at Indian Oasis (4-6).
The average cost per sf is $83. The sample ranges from $67 in the Paradise Valley (K-6) prototy-pes to
$144 per sf at Cameron Elementary in Tuba City.
0 The total cost per student ranges from $6,874 at Westwood Elementary (K-3) to $29,473 at Indian Oasis
(4-6) with the average being $12,017 per student.
Change Orders make up 2.5% of the construction contract totals. These are additions made to the
construction contract during construction.
Contractor's conditions and fees range from 0% to 9.93% of the construction contract amount with the
average being 3.26 % .
Architectural fees range from $1.19/building sf to $6.68/building sf. This is a fee range of 2% to 7%
with the average being 4.95 % of the construction contract.
In the May, 1996 issue of American School and University, the 22nd Annual School Construction Report was
published. The results of that report are compared to the sample of this study in the table below.
Note that sf per student is less than average due to the fact that corridor space in many schools is outdoors.
But Arizona schools build for a larger number of students, consequently have higher costs for the average
school. The high school sample in our study was skewed due to the fact that one of the two schools is an
accommodation school and not typical of a regular high school.
1 New School
- G G q $ 1 1 1 1 3 ~ 1 ~ / - E m G x q E l e m e n t a r y ~ ~ - i c a a Z q ~ I ~ y """"R"'"A""""II'"r School
Average No. of
High School
AZ H~gh School
Average S~ze
$1 3,361
Total Cost
$1 5,362,505
MGT Results
The MGT study was used to evaluate the critical condition of schools in Arizona. Based on a 100 point scale,
buildings with a score of below 50 contained numerous severe problems requiring prompt attention to save the
building. Buildings below 30 are candidates for demolition. The general building condition scores were
average for each school and they were placed in ascending order with the lowest score first. This list was
compared to the list of new construction, additions and remodel projects over $500,000 and any projects
which corrected the deficiency were eliminated from the list. Eight of the schools had above median net
assessed value and were removed. The results were 35 schools with emergency critical needs (Exhibit A). In
addition, numerous schools not included in this study fall in the 50-69 point range, which is considered fair to
satisfactory condition with severe problems requiring attention.
Using the average cost of new school construction to estimate the cost of replacement and using the average
remodel cost (Exhibit E), minimum emergency funding required would be:
Replacement cost (1 High School) X $5,911,716 $ 5,911,716
Remodel Cost (22 El, 5MS/JH,5HS) X $1,319,248.50 $42,215,952
Remodel 8 Above Median NAV X $1,3 19,248.50 $ 10,553,988
Architectural Fees 6 % typical rate $ 3,519,699
Note: High school construction nationally runs double that of elementary. But because of the limited sample
Arizona JFigures would have to be adjusted accordingly. These costs exclude furniture, fixtures and equipment.
After an examination of current practices, the following recommendations were concluded from this study:
= The selection of the architect should be on a project-by-project basis. Once a design is purchased,
any firm may adapt it for district use. Schools need to remain open to site-based decision making
and not be locked into multiyear contracts.
3 The contract needs to bid out in the spring one year prior to opening.
= The MGT report needs to be updated and used as a basis for emergency funding. It is an objective,
comprehensive assessment of the condition of Arizona schools.
A resource bank for facilities management that includes education building specifications,
architectural plans, contract documents, and examples of RFP's should be maintained, as well as
provide support and training.
= Designs may be evaluated through comparison of costs in this study and alternatives sought for
fluctuations. A general contractor or construction manager may act as a consultant during the
planning stages to provide input or estimates to the process.
= The State Board for Capital Facilities should disburse funds in monthly progress payments, after
invoices are signed-off by the district. This allows the state to bank the funds and collect interest
until they are actually needed to cover costs.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
1.2 Purpose of the Study
1.3 Sample Studied
1.4 Questions to be Answered by This Study
1.5 Delimitations and Limitations
1.6 Anticipated Value or Significance of the Study
1.7 Summary
1.8 Definitions
2.1 The Role of the State Agency
2.2 Condition of Arizona Schools
2.3 Facility Planning
2.4 Estimating Construction Costs
2.5 Hiring an Architect
2.6 Selecting a Design
2.7 Hiring a Contractor
2.8 The Construction Process
2.9 A S & U Education Construction Report
3.1 Overview
3.2 MGT Results
3.3 Hiring the Architect
3.4 List of Current Projects
3.5 Construction Costs
3.6 Contractor Concerns
3.7 Summary
4.1 MGT Results
4.2 Hiring the Architect
4.3 Current Projects
4.4 Construction Cost Breakdowns
4.5 Contractor Concerns
4.6 Conclusion
Figure 1. SF Per Student
Figure 2. Dollar Cost Per SF
Figure 3. Cost Estimate Analysis Chart
Figure 4. National Averages
Figure 5. Cost Breakdowns
Figure 6. Minimum Emergency Funding
Figure 7. School Construction Projects Over $500,000
Figure 8. Schedule of Values Distribution
Figure 9. Trade Cost Ranges
Figure 10. Study Comparison SFIStudent
Figure 11. Adjusted CostISF
Figure 12. State Average Comparisons
Figure 13. CostIStudent Range
Exhibit A. MGT Average Building Condition Scores/Schools
Exhibit B. Program and Bond Management
Exhibit C. New Construction Projects
Exhibit D. School Additions Over $500,000
Exhibit E. Remodels/Renovations Over $500,000
Exhibit F. Schedule of Values Glossary
Exhibit G. New Construction Schedule of Values Spreadsheet
Exhibit H. Frontier Elementary School Dome Construction
Exhibit I. Trade CostsINew School Building SF
I would like to express my appreciation to Patricia Weigt, Government Reporter for F.W. Dodge Plan
Room, who expedited my search for the new projects statewide. Much of the policies and procedures
research was through the use of material provided by Sheila Rubin, Contract Management Specialist
for the Arizona Department of Education. I would like to thank the architects involved in new school
construction projects statewide whose cooperation and prompt responses allowed this study to be done
in the timeframe required. Their assistance in answering questions, and providing information and
materials gave initial impetus to this project. Because contractors are the final step in the construction
team, their critique provides an overall assessment of the process. The school districts involved
provided drawings, pay requests, contractual materials and valuable information in answer to my
questions. There is a wealth of material, personnel and resources within school systems across the
state which is available to assist schools with little or no expertise. Yet there needs to be some
coordination for a network of assistance and communication at the state level.
With the information provided in this study, districts will now be able to make informed choices in the
construction process. Architects and contractors will have a baseline for more accurate estimates in
the future.
Patrice Conley
Arizona Department of Education
1.1 Statement of the Problem (Background1
A statewide school facilities review was authorized by Arizona legislation in June 1994. It was
immediately followed in July by the Arizona Supreme Court ruling in Roosevelt Elementary School
District No. 66, et al. v. C. Diane Bishop, which held that the financing system for school
construction was unconstitutional because it failed to maintain a "general and uniform public school
system" required by Article XI, Sec. 1 of the Arizona Constitution.
1.2 The Purpose of the Study
An examination of the current Arizona construction practices and costs will provide quantitative and
qualitative information to the Arizona Department of Education that will assist in making
recommendations and projections for school facilities statewide. In order to implement a pay-as-you-go
plan for school construction as proposed in State School Superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan's
Plan for Education in Arizona (1996), construction cost breakdowns will be helpful in determining
funding stages and ranges of costs statewide. In the literary research section, a brief overview of the
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report (1996) describes the states' roles in the three types of
facilities management of schools. Included in our findings is a survey on the current process to select
architectural services for the districts with new school construction. Finally, suggestions for
improvement from contractors may assist in providing technical assistance in the school construction
process. The application of this information may help school districts compare project designs and
regional expenses of new construction.
1.3 Sample Studied
The sample studied was drawn from school districts, architects and contractors who are currently
involved in new school construction projects. This list was provided by F.W. Dodge Plan Room,
McGraw-Hill's Construction Bid News Division, from school projects over $500,000 that bid in 1995
through June 1, 1996. After breaking out the projects into new construction, additions or remodels,
the architects or school districts were asked for the latest pay application on the new construction
projects. Each of the school districts was contacted for a description of how the architect was hired
for the project and the contractors were asked for suggestions for improvement.
1.4 Questions to be Answered by This Study
From the information provided, the actual cost of new school construction in Arizona can be
compared to national averages. Determination can be made as to the average cost per student and
cost per square foot of the schools currently in process of construction, as well as square foot per
student. In addition, some best practices for procuring professional services can be used as a model
for school districts without a current policy. Finally, recommendations for educational guidelines in
construction may be deduced from this study.
1.5 Delimitations and Limitations
Disparities in design, material availability and regional labor costs are extremely difficult to isolate.
The sitework and demolition costs vary widely and must be taken into consideration on a project by
project basis. Furniture, fixtures and equipment costs are not a part of construction contracts unless
they are permanently affixed. Therefore, they are omitted except as percentage projections. The
schedule of values was limited to 100 items. so some of the classifications were combined.
A major limitation in this study is that the results are based on the information provided to the
researcher. Additional contracts awarded were included when noted, but there may be some
omissions. Site acquisition costs and professional fees were excluded from this study except as cost
projections due to the timeframe required to research this information. Because not all the projects
are completed, additional costs may yet be incurred due to change orders to the original contract
during the course of construction. A change order category is difficult to break down into the line
items because changes to the contract are usually a combination of many small revisions. There also
may be a less than representative sample of projects this summer due to the moratorium on the use of
Premium Capital Appreciation Bonds for financing, as well as many district bond proposals which
have been rejected until the school finance issue is resolved.
1.6 Anticipated Value or Significance of the Study
An understanding of the status of statewide school construction will assist ADE with projections for
adequate construction funds for educational facilities. An understanding of the process will highlight
the educational guidelines that need to be considered in school construction. Many schools at this
time have reached a critical stage with the rapid influx of new students, deteriorating buildings,
support systems overburdened with portables and obsolete teaching stations, necessitating immediate
construction for which capital must be found. Charter schools may also need to look for assistance in
the future in the management of their facilities as part of the statewide educational system.
1.7 Summary
This study provides a list of current construction projects and their costs in order to compare and
project the basic funding needs to build or replace schools in today's Arizona market. A breakdown
by division costs will help school districts see the distribution of the range of values determined by the
design and location and to evaluate each project in relation to other schools statewide. A review of
the construction process will help model some of the districts' best practices. The Arizona
Department of Education will have to define its role in assistance and assessment in conjunction with
the State Board for School Capital Facilities.
1.8 Definitions
AIA - American Institute of Architects- a nationwide professional association of architects
ADE - Arizona Department of Education
A S & U - American School and University monthly publication
building cost - cost of the building itself, excluding sitework, professional fees, F F &E
child friendly materials - use of materials that can be touched, tasted, smelled without danger
construction contract - the scope of work and payment required to build a school facility
disability requirements - adaptive materials and provisions for compliance to Federal law
double bonding - performance and payment bonds required of contractor and subcontractors
F, F & E - furniture, fixtures and equipment
fixed equipment - items permanently installed in the building
GAO - United Stated General Accounting Office
general conditions - expenses associated with management of a project
HVAC - Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IAQ - Internal Air Quality
life safety codes - adherence to firebuilding codes
MGT - MGT of America, Inc.
NAV - Net Assessed Value
pay application/progress payment request (PPR) - contractor's monthly billing for work completed
since last billing
site development/sitework - work required to prepare a site for building construction
SOV - schedule of values
*additional definitions are included in Exhibit F
The current nationwide information on construction costs is primarily comprised of the annual report
published each May in American School and University (A S & U), as well as general estimates from
experienced architects and contractors. In this review, the GAO report on school facilities will be
summarized, the MGT report will be introduced for pertinent information on school conditions in
Arizona, project planning procedures will be outlined and selected articles in professional publications
will be referenced for information and clarification.
2.1 The Role of the State Education Agency
A recent United States General Accounting Office report "SCHOOL FACILITIES: States Financial
and Technical Support Varies "(1996) outlines three types of involvement provided by the state:
Funding States vary in their provision of funds for construction, renovation or major
maintenance of school facilities. Grants or loans are made available to pay for local
construction cost or debt service. In fiscal 1994, forty states provided about $3.5
billion for school facilities construction, with only eight of the states providing loans.
Most states prioritize their funding toward districts with less ability to pay, but do not
provide assistance for preventative or routine maintenance. The source of the funding
is through budget appropriation in 29 of the states.
Technical Assistance and Forty-four states provide some information and assistance to districts on funding,
Compliance Review construction requirements, planning, architectural matters, education specifications and
other facilities-related issues such as needs assessment, long range planning, building
design, hazardous materials, legal and architectural matters. Most of the guidance is
furnished by phone, publications, manuals, meetings and workshops. The technical
assistance staff varies from less than 1 full time equivalent (FTE) to 72, with most
states having fewer than 6 FTE. A primary function of the staff is overseeing
compliance with educational specifications required for state aid.
Data Collection on Twenty-three states have conducted a one-time study of facilities conditions statewide.
Condition of Facilities Fifteen of the states update their condition data regularly or revise data when districts
apply for funding.
Thirteen of the states have what is considered comprehensive facilities programs through involvement
in all three areas above. These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia. With
the creation of the State Board for School Capital Facilities and the subsequent appointment of a staff,
Arizona has a chance to address all three areas effectively.
The use of state fUnds will require some oversight at the state level to ensure that allocations are used
appropriately for buildings that are cost efficient, have adequate life cycles, and which meet the health
and safety needs of all students. Designs must include provisions for technology and educational
reform. The emphasis toward site-based management will lessen the need for a district administration
complex, but may require a different configuration for school offices in order to provide workrooms or
conference rooms for community task teams. New instructional methods may need rooms that are
adaptable to both large and small groups. Some educational guidelines may need to be established for
recipients of state-generated funding.
2.2 Conditions of Arizona Schools
The Facilities Needs Assessment Study completed by MGT (1994) found that 13% of the Arizona
school buildings surveyed needed immediate attention. Less than 10% had current building or fire code
violations, and less than 1% needed immediate replacement. The school districts with below median
net assessed value (NAV) had 90% of these buildings. The districts with above median net assessed
value had more space, buildings in better condition and 64% more construction.
Condition assessments were done by experienced professionals who had attended MGT evaluator
training in order maintain uniform results. All permanent buildings in below median NAV districts
and a representative sample (37%) of buildings in above median NAV districts were given a general
condition score to reflect the overall condition of the building. Based on a 100 point scale, a score of
below 50 indicated the building was in poor condition with numerous problems that required immediate
attention in order to save the building from further deterioration. A score of below 30 indicated the
building was a candidate for demolition unless extensive renovation and substantial investment were
indicated due to a building's historic status.
In this study, the schools with a mean score of below 50 were compared to the lists of current
construction projects to eliminate the schools who were in the process of correcting building
deficiencies (Exhibit A). Follow-up to verify building status would update the MGT study up for
immediate use by the School Capital Facilities Board to facilitate disbursement of the emergency funds
from the School Capital Equity Fund.
2.3 Facility Planning
A district master facilities plan should include a five-year record with description and schedules of all
maintenance, remodel, usage change and replacement of equipment and facilities. Dr. Thomas Glass
developed the following plan for facility planning (1994).
Demographic analysis of district. This includes a ten-year enrollment history and development
of a map to track housing starts, births, transiency, religious affiliation, employment patterns,
cultural composition and age of the population. Some of this information may be obtained through
U.S. Census. Ovard, Kirschenstein and Lee (1991) detailed two methods of projecting
1. Cohort survival method. Determine the change in the number of students from
one grade to the next, using figures from the same date of each year. Then
calculate percentage change for each grade level and apply that ratio to the
known number of students.
2. Mapping. Divide the school district into subareas or grids and determine the
yield rates or generation factors (e.g., number of students) for the number of
residences. Use these factors to project number of children from new homes
and add to existing enrollment, then develop an overview of the entire district
for growth or decline areas.
Assessment of facilities. This includes a space utilization study, safety audit with evaluation of
systems and student capacity. Buildings need to be built for 50-year use, so flexibility is an
indicator of quality. An analysis of the facility's impact on support services (i.e. transportation,
recreation, food services, etc.) should be considered with this assessment.
Align facility plan with district strategic plan. This will include maintenance costs per square
foot per building, energy costs per square foot, remodeling costs, replacement, development and
equipment repair in order to forecast future needs. All this needs to be incorporated into a
workable schedule with a long range financial plan. It is at this stage that a district develops their
educational guidelines to be considered in the design of their buildings.
A diagram developed by A1 Navarette of Sunnyside Unified School District demonstrates the process
of program and bond management for construction projects. (Exhibit B) The entire process covers a
timeframe of at least three years with time allotted for determining scope, predesign planning stage,
cost analysis, final design, bid, construction phase and finally, occupancy under warranty.
2.4 Estimating Construction Costs
In a May 1989 supplement of the American School Board Journal entitled "Building Education"
Carter, Scarbrough and Spain outlined steps for estimating a school construction budget.
3 First, the needed building area must be estimated. Determination of the gross square foot
per student depends on how functionally adequate (i.e., amount of service and support) the
building is to be. The national averages published in the 22nd Official Education Construction
Report by American School & University (1996) differ somewhat from MGT Ranges of the
15 states in their calculation of gsflstudent and those found statewide in the Arizona School
Facilities Review prepared by MGT (1994). In this examination of Arizona's new school
construction, only two high schools are included and one of them is atypical in that it is an
accommodation school. Also, at the middle school level, only two schools are true middle
schools with two others being K-8. The grade level of Arizona's schools are not as clearly
defined as the national report, therefore classification of the sample schools and comparisons
need to be put into some perspective.
FIGURE 1: SF per Student
Arizona standards are found to be lower than the national figures due to the fact that
portables are common in elementary schools and because many schools in the state use
outdoor corridors, making the circulation space included in the building sf minimal. Many
unified school districts have smaller elementary space, yet a larger amount of space at the
middle or high school levels due to the fact that specialized facilities (e.g. auditoriums,
cafeterias, etc.) are available for use by all levels. In estimating needed building area, the
gross square foot per student increases as the size of the school decreases in order to
encompass special facilities included in the school.
3 Second, the quality of construction must be determined. This is expressed in dollar cost per
square foot based on materials, systems and type of construction. In the A S & U report
(1996), the current average cost nationally is reported to be:
+ Elementary $100.69
+ Middle School $103.85
+ High School $110.19
FIGURE 2: Dollar Cost Per SF
3 Third, estimate the cost to acquire a site and/or demolish existing structures. This cost is
influenced by location, topography, soil and mineral types, utilities available, access roads,
zoning, and special considerations such as historic monuments, wildlife, water table, etc.
Actual site development costs cannot be accurately estimated until site soil tests have been
made. In Arizona, these site development costs are usually a part of the construction
3 Fourth, a cost estimate analysis chart developed by William Pena (1987) should project the
total budget required to build a hypothetical school (excluding the cost of acquiring capital).
J. TOTAL BUDGET REQUIRED D + E thru J
FIGURF: 3: Cost Estimate Analysis Chart
2.5 Hiring an Architect
Arizona Revised Statutes 4 1-2578 require procurement of specified professional services to serve notice
and award contracts for these services "on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for
the type of services required and at a fair and reasonable price." Firms are encouraged to submit
annually data on qualifications and performance to the director or head of a purchasing agency who
shall initiate an appropriately qualified selection committee for each contract. If possible, the
committee shall conduct discussions with no fewer than three firms regarding the contract and relative
methods of approach for furnishing the required services. They shall select no fewer than three firms,
in order of preference, deemed most qualified. The contract shall be awarded to:
3 1) the highest qualified firm (unless a fair and reasonable price is not deemed
negotiable when it goes to the next most qualified firm); or
3 2) the architects who provided a sealed scope of services, wherein the selection
committee conducts discussions with no fewer than five firms regarding the
proposals and approach to furnish services. Three firms will be selected to submit a
fee proposal and award shall be given to the "offerer whose proposal is the most
advantageous to this state taking advantage of the evaluation factors set forth in the
request for proposals and fee."
The notice of need of professional services shall be given pursuant to R2-7-3 13 Invitation for Bids at
least 14 days in advance of response date. The notice shall contain a statement of services required that
adequately describes the project and how specific information may be obtained. All f m s responding
to the public notice will receive supplemental statements describing project requirements and any
preproposal conference or criteria used in the selection. For amounts over $50,000 a selection
committee will be formed of an uneven number. not less than three members which include:
1) procurement officer as chairman,
2) a representative of the using agency,
3) a person registered in the professions involved in the proposed project,
4) if project cost is over $2,000,000, a non-state employee in the profession involved,
5) such other members deemed appropriate.
2.6 Selecting a Design
Facility assessment requires a match between the needs of the educational programs and the
configuration of facilities based on space and suitability. The key components according to Dr. Thomas
Glass (1 994) and Mary Oetzel(1994) are:
Design Efficiency or Net to Gross. Percent of space which is usable for instruction. Corridors,
stairwells, rest rooms, janitor closets, etc. should be kept to a minimum. Districts should require net
to gross to be in the range of 70 percent.
Technical Capacity. What space is needed for each student and the maximum number of
students at each station is usually determined by district standards or teacher association agreements.
Practical Capacity. Factors which need to be considered are: flexibility of teaching space,
furniture size, equipment used, built-ins (e.g. closets, cabinets, etc.), instructional strategies, special
education inclusion, technology requirements and student capacities. The sums of the capacities of
each space are added up and divided by the classroom utilization ratio.
Classroom Utilization Ratio. The amount of time the classroom is actually used each day.
Students at-risk usually require a double count because of the need for two spaces at school (i.e., need
for pull out for counseling, bilingual work, etc.) all of which require additional space.
Site Capacity. Actual usable acreage requirements are considered for physical education and
activities, including safety requirements for bus loading, parking, and walkways.
Physical Adequacy.
Environmental factors j such as indoor air quality (IAQ) can be affected
i by carpeting and carpeting adhesives,
i formaldehyde, glue products, pesticides and
.i improperly functioning heating, ventilation and
; air conditioning systems (HVAC). Caution
j should be taken in the design to incorporate
i alternate materials when possible.
............................................................................................................... * ...............................................................................................................
Structural adequacy i should be examined by a professional for
j structural integrity and to assure life cycle
j functionality of the building.
............................................................................................................... - ...............................................................................................................
Electrical demands j due to increased technology require cooling
j systems while outdoor lighting for security are
i placing more demands on the systems. Plans : should allow expansion for future demands on
j electrical delivery. Another consideration is
j electrical and magnetic fields (EMFs) associated
j with 60 Hertz power of high tension power lines,
; electric wires within buildings and electrical
j equipment and appliances.
............................................................................................................... - ...............................................................................................................
Mechanical systems j should provide some fresh air intakes to ensure a
j proper mix with recirculated air. Ductwork
j should be designed to provide for ease of
j cleaning and inspection.
............................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................... a
Z5eml controls j need to adjust to individual room conditions. .
............................................................................................................... - ...............................................................................................................
Acoustical placement j should separate noise from desired sounds,
j especially with the reduction of interior noise.
............................................................................................................... -. ..............................................................................................................
Visual j lighting systems should consider reflectance,
j brightness balance and control design with a
i determination as to what type of light is provided.
Timothy Crowe (1990) suggests that with the increase in youth violence, security considerations must
also be worked into the design. These include visible school grounds, single entry parking lots, open
locker rooms, the elimination of hidden areas in corridors and classrooms, and accessible rest rooms
without double doors.
Some prevalent design strategies suggested by James Rydeen in his article Designs for Learning (1993)
are divisible, large group lecture rooms to accommodate team teaching strategies with folding partitions
to break into smaller groups or classroom use. A variety of small group spaces are needed for
individual or partner tasks. Staff offices or conference rooms can be used for task team work and
planning. This design concept works effectively in hotel ballrooms which can be divided into large and
small meeting rooms, thereby eliminating the need for a separate auditorium.
Gaylord Christopher, president of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Committee on
Architecture for Education stated in an article on Model Schools (1995), applauded designing areas for
students as workers and developing more studio space for hands-on activities. At the new Gateway
School Project in St. Louis, an education park in the courtyard provides an outdoor learning area. A
pond for aquatic life, a math and science playground, an amphitheater, native rock outcroppings, a
windmill connected to a hydraulics laboratory and native plants and trees are provided to expand
learning opportunities outdoors. In the Arizona climate, the classroom without walls concept could be
maximized with educational landscaping. At atew way, the walls of the building have flaps that, when
lifted, will allow students to study the interior construction details of the building. The Phoenix Public
Library is an example of this open detail where the building itself becomes a learning tool.
2.7 Hiring. a Contractor
The use of a construction manager can assist school districts without a large staff to oversee the
construction process. The construction manager (CM) should be chosen early enough in the process to
interpret district input to the design and assist with preparation of invitation to bid documents.
McKinley (1 99 1) cautions against the traditional general contractor approach because:
Low bidder is not always sufficiently experienced.
Some contractors bid low and change order to increase profits.
0 Some firms get into an adversarial position with the school district.
The use of a construction manager can improve cost efficiency, use low bidders outside the general
contractor's team, watch-dog for design conformity, reduce claims, and save time. It is, however, one
more set of professional fees to incorporate into the cost of construction. The downside of the
construction manager is control without risk, more administrative work, costlier bids to incorporate
bond costs and floating costs for alternatives. Because the process of selection for CM services is much
like the architect, a school district who is uncomfortable with low bid selection may opt for a
construction manager to represent their interests in the process.
The process for hiring a contractor shall be by the process of competitive sealed bidding as with all state
contracts, according to ARS Sec. 41-2533. An invitation for bids packet should be prepared which
includes a purchase description, contractual terms and conditions, bid drawings and a specification
book which defines certain materials and processes which are to be used in the construction project.
Adequate public notice of invitation for bids shall be given a reasonable time before the date set for the
opening of bids. This notice requires publication in up to two newspapers with a general circulation of
at least 50,000 which are not less than six nor more than ten days apart. The second publication shall
not be less than two weeks before bid opening. At least one of the newspapers must be circulated in the
affected governmental jurisdiction. The Omnibus Bill (ARS Sec. 15-2 13 amended by Laws-1 996
Chapter 284) states that the governing board should be allowed to give notice in the official newspaper
of the county.
Pre-bid conferences may be called not less than seven days before a bid to explain requirements.
Statements made at the conference to clarify information shall not be considered amendments.
Amendments may be necessary to make changes to the invitation for bids, to correct defects or
ambiguities, or to furnish to other bidders information given to one bidder if it will assist other bidders
in submitting bids. Amendments shall be identified and signed and returned with the bid by the
opening date and time.
Bids shall be opened publicly with the amounts recorded. Any information contained in the bid
documents shall remain confidential until after a contract is awarded. The contract shall be awarded to
the lowest responsible and responsive bidder.
2.8 The Construction Process
Upon providing the governing board with all required bonds and insurance certificates and signing the
construction contract, the general contractor is given a Notice to Proceed. Most school contracts
include a specific date (usually at the beginning of a school year) for substantial completion of the
project, at which time the contractor becomes liable for liquidated damages. The most difficult factor in
school construction is the fast-track scheduling and deadline for completion. The contractor develops a
schedule for the project and awards subcontracts to the various trades. During the course of
construction, the contractor submits an application for payment each month for the materials used and
the work completed since the last billing. The general contractor usually includes the billings from
each of the subcontractors in preparation of this pay application, according to what he warrants to be
the percentage of work completed with 5-10 percent retained until final acceptance of the building by
the governing board. The architect verifies and signs the application to submit to the governing board
for payment directly to the general contractor. Lien releases for the previous month are collected when
the subcontractor was paid for that month and held until the completion of the project.
Change orders are additions or deletions to the contract. Every effort should be made during the design
stage to include all items because during the course of construction, it is difficult and expensive to
revise drawings, revise schedules and secure materials with enough notice to be available on the job site
in time.
Before final payment, the general contractor will draw up a punch list of items to correct and each
subcontractor will complete all items before receiving retention. Upon completion of the project, the
contractor is to provide maintenance manuals and warranties for any equipment installed in the
2.9 A S & U Education Construction Report
Construction of new schools nationally dropped 20% in 1995 from 1994 figures. This was found to be
the lowest amount spent on new schools since 1989. However, total spending only dropped slightly
with sixty-four percent of school construction dollars spent on modernizing and adding to existing
buildings. Yet demands on facilities are driven by the fact that the school age population is projected to
grow by 19 percent over the next ten years and by 33 percent between now and 2030.
The 22nd Official Education Construction Report's findings show that nationally 36% of construction
money was spent on new school construction, 38% on additions and 26% on modernizations. In
forecasts of future spending in the next three years, respondent estimates from school districts dropped
24 percent from the previous year's projection due to economic conditions and funding realities. Of
future projects, 45 percent of school construction dollars are earmarked for new construction, while
additions make up 32 percent and remodels the remaining 23 percent. When looking at construction
over the last 5 years, it appears spending has reached a plateau while the population continues to grow
and space demands increase to accommodate new program requirements. According to the Education
Construction Report, the region comprised of Arizona, California, Nevada and Hawaii spent 44 percent
of school construction dollars on new construction and 55 percent on additions and remodels.
Adbitianaj ififomatton &om the report shows &at narianal atircrages for 1995 constmcrion iz~clude:
Upan examination af special Acil;"Bics in new schools, a few wends emerge. First, libraries md media
centers me ROE as instmrnepltal& they ofnee were because infomazion once an14 lFound in %he library is
now acccs%ibleth rough technology, A steady decline In comnpulcs centers suggests fhere is less need %'us
a separate room a$ cornputen are inca~amteb bra the ciassrooms. A~dizaritams, however, are
increasing at the lower levels and decreasiag at it.&& scEloal level as The need far gage group inscrucfion
increases, as wefl as the need far s meeting arc8 for shoal-u ibe programs,
The regma provides a distribution of costs which we can EL.fo r proj~xionsin &e abseace of sire
acquisition casfs and hmishings expense.
In the Arizana sarmple, sitework deveiapmer.rt costs are included in the conscmckion canwact. However,
adjacent ways 2nd ~ f l ~ iwkoer k are usually a separate cantract ar a clnaogc order bat have been included
%hen avai&ab)lcF, rom the inkaanatiorx in hExe pr~edingch apter, a statewide school construction report
warrants a study of actual cost comparisons to the r~ational Egures in order to lay the grotand work for
facr l iries mafsagefllena. Further in formatian on site acquisrtion cosrs and furniture, fixtures and
equipment could be researched in 0~defra have exact Arizona figures to cumpare with national reports,
Until then, projections will be made from these prceatages.
In the June, 1996 GAO report "SCHOOL FACILITIES: America's Schools Report Differing
Conditions," the subgroups of schools with the most problems are: central city, western region, large
schools, secondary schools, populations of 50.5% minority and 70% or more poor students. The
average elementary school in their study costs about $6 million, and the average secondary school $15
million. The most frequently reported building feature in need of repair is HVAC systems. The most
common unsatisfactory environmental conditions are acoustics, ventilation and security. The average
school in America needed $1.7 million to repair and upgrade to good condition.
Several state courts and Congress recognize children must attend school in "decent facilities" to achieve
a high quality learning environment. In Pauley v. Kelly, No. 75-C1268 (Kanawha County Cir. Ct. W.
Va., May 1982), "decent facilities" was defined as those that are "structurally safe, contain fire safety
measures, sufficient exits, an adequate and safe water supply, an adequate sewage disposal system,
sufficient and sanitary toilet facilities and plumbing fixtures, adequate storage, adequate light, be in
good repair and attractively painted as well as contain acoustics for noise control."
3.1 Overview
This section describes the procedures used to gather and organize the information into a working
format. First, the MGT report was analyzed to get a list of critical needs statewide. Then a list of
current projects that advertised to bid in Dodge Reports was separated by type of project. The next step
was to isolate the new construction projects from the list as our study sample and request information
on cost breakdowns. The districts in this sample were then surveyed as to the process used for
contracting architectural services. Finally, contractors were contacted for suggestions for alternatives
for construction management improvement and examination of school construction problems.
3.2 MGT Results
In 1995, from February until May, a team of evaluators conducted building inventories at all 584
schools of below median net assessed property value per student. In addition, the sample encompassed
at least one school in each district of above NAV, which provided a random sample of 175 schools.
The buildings were evaluated using MGT's Building Condition Evaluation System based on a 100-
point scale. A building with a condition score of less than 30 was a candidate for demolition. A score
of 30-49 was poor condition with numerous severe problems requiring prompt attention to save the
building from further deterioration. A score of 50-69 was fair to satisfactory with several added or
more severe problems requiring attention. A list of schools with a mean general condition building
score of less than 50 was compiled from the May 1995 Report to The Arizona Statewide Standards
Assessment Advisory Committee by. MGT of America. From this list of 52, there were 5 schools with
current construction, addition or remodel projects, another 8 from above median assessed value school
districts, and 1 building razed. These schools were eliminated from the list, and the remainder were
checked against the December 5, 1995 updated database with 4 of the buildings having adjustments to
above 50. The buildings were once again averaged with the revised figures for a mean score for the
school and then prioritized in ascending order, beginning with the most critical need, based on the
average general building condition score given by MGT inspectors. Additional follow-up needs to be
done to verify any revisions to this list to date because construction projects under $500,000 were not
included on the list of remodels. The NAV and ADM information on this exhibit was supplied from the
1995 database provided at the 1995 Arizona Education Finance Summit. The average cost for new
school construction was estimated for schools below 30 points with the average cost for remodel
projects attributed to the schools requiring prompt attention. From these figures, an estimate of funds
required for immediate emergency repairs can be calculated. In addition, numerous schools fall in the
50-69 range with severe problems requiring attention and funding assistance. However, for the
purposes of this study, these scores are only to be used to emphasize the extent of deterioration and
establish a rough estimate needed for immediate critical construction assistance at the state level.
3.3 Hiring. the Architect
Each of the 23 school districts involved in new construction was contacted by telephone and asked to
describe the process they used to hire the architect for the project. The researcher took notes on the
description and then set up a check sheet which listed the number on the selection committee, number
of firms interviewed or shortlisted, length of contract and number of f m s contracted and the fees for
professional services. The results will be in the findings section.
3.4 List of Current Pro-jects
A list of current school construction projects over $500,000 was provided by the F. W. Dodge Plan
Room. F. W. Dodge is a Division of McGraw-Hill Companies which publishes Construction News
West, a weekly magazine which provides information on regional projects up for bid. They also
publish a daily Dodge Report used by contractors to keep current on the status of construction projects.
The project information is taken from the owners, architects and project managers wishing to provide
notice of the project and from the news services' publications of an invitation to bid in any affiliate
newspaper. All but 2 percent of the projects will end up listed with Dodge. Accordingly, our sample
may have a current project not included on our list, but the attempt was made to inquire from school
districts involved or current project architects in order to get the most complete list possible for this
The parameters which were used in the search were: I) the school project bid anytime in 1995 and up to
June 1, 1996, and 2) the project be over $500,000. Upon receipt of a list, some projects required
further descriptions to determine what type of project was bid. From this information, three lists were
compiled to separate new schools (Exhibit C), additions (Exhibit D) and remodelsiretrofit projects
(Exhibit E) which also included the estimated cost provided to Dodge. No other verifications were
made on the additions list or remodel projects list because of time constraints. Totals were then added
with averages on the estimates calculated The purpose in including these is to estimate needed current
construction projects and for comparisons to the national report.
A list of new school construction was compiled which included the name of the school district,
architect, and general contractor and percent completed (Exhibit C). The architects and school districts
were then contacted and notified of this study and then requested to send the latest pay application and
any architectural drawings for use of the Department to clarify cost differences. Most pay applications
were submitted for payment on May 3 lst, 1996 for the work completed during that month. The starred
percentages are the most recent request for payment prior to the end of May. The rationale for the use
of most current request was to include any changes or additions made to the contract in order to include
all costs in the calculations.
3.5 Construction Costs
Each of the pay application requests was compared for similarities in line items and a common schedule
of values was developed, loosely using the construction specification index's 16 division format. Some
categories were combined to keep the total number of items under 100. Each pay application was then
entered by item into the category that was closest to the description. The use of a spreadsheet allowed a
comparison of projects. (Exhibit G) Individual calculations for sales tax percent, and contractor's fees
were completed. Once the total sf and number of students was provided by the district or architect, it is
then possible to calculate sfistudent, construction cost per student and make some projection as to total
costlstudent using the formula provided in Figure 3. An explanation of the terms used on the
spreadsheet is in the glossary for the schedule of values. (Exhibit F)
Change Order totals are a separate line item on the spreadsheet in that these are changes which occur
after the contract is executed and usually result in an additional cost to the project. The percent of sales
tax varies with location of the project and the line item was included to view the range of taxes paid by
the district for the construction of a school. Note that contractors pay tax on 65% of the contract
amount due to standard deduction for their labor costs. Contractor conditions and fees are a separate
line item in order to examine the costs involved with the construction management of a project and the
profit margin. For comparison sake, these costs were combined only because these items were not
broken out on all applications and they are interrelated. Any savings to general condition costs would
increase profit for the contractor, but any overages would eat into the contractor's fee.
Total costs were compiled and averages for each trade were calculated. Finally, the average costs
were grouped and totaled into the divisions, and the percentage of the total construction project
determined. The spreadsheet provides the quantitative data requested of this report. (Exhibit G)
The trade costs per square foot were part of a second spreadsheet. (Exhibit I) The division totals for
the twenty eight schools were averaged and then put into descending order to determine median, range
and quartile range for Figure 9. Quartile range was used to give a more accurate range because of
outlying special design factors in some of the sample schools. In addition, a line item is included with
the architect's fee per sf. This figure was calculated by multiplying the fee percentage by the
construction cost, then dividing by the building sf. Where a fixed fee was charged, that amount was
divided by sf for this. This number is not included in the contract total.
The adjusted costlsf was difficult to compare to the national figures which include site acquisition costs,
F F & E costs and professional fees. In order to have some comparison, the site development fees and
construction costs were calculated based on Figure 5 using the following:
* Elementary: Construction contracts are 84.2% of total costs
* Middle School: Construction contracts are 82.5% of total costs
* High School: Construction contracts are 83.4% of total costs
3.6 Contractor Concerns
General contractors were surveyed by telephone to answer two questions:
What are the problems unique to school construction?
What suggestions do you have for improvement of the process?
The researcher took notes on the response and itemized in descending order with the most frequent
responses at the top of the list. Fifteen contractors are involved in new school construction and ten
3.7 Summary
Interpreting the existing MGT data points up a critical need for immediate intervention in the condition
of school facilities statewide. Using the average cost for new construction, additions and remodels, an
approximation of funds required can be projected for these schools. In addition, numerous schools fall
in the fair to satisfactory range with severe problems requiring attention.
By creating a list of current construction projects and then examining them in detail, mean costs can
be used to compare an individual project to the percent distribution of our sample and look for
fluctuations in materials or labor for a particular trade. The amount of sf per child can assist in the
analysis of different size projects as to their space usage for instruction and support in order to help
determine desired guidelines. The cost per square foot can be used to differentiate between an austere
design or a grand design (Cater, Scarbrough,-Spain, 1989) and help architects and owners estimate
the current Arizona market. The construction cost per student will help determine a pay as you go
amount for a construction project to proceed. The total cost per student will help in long term
planning for future projects and funding allocations.
4.1 MGT Results
Based on the MGT General Building Condition score, one school is a candidate for demolition, with 34
schools of below median NAV containing numerous severe problems requiring prompt attention to save
the buildings. (Exhibit A) In addition, four of the buildings have building or fire code violations.
Because of the severity of their condition, an estimate of the emergency funds needed immediately for
replacement, repair or remodel is based on the average major project bid cost found in this study. Note
that nationally high school costs are at least double that of elementary, but because of the limited
secondary sample, the average Arizona school construction cost was used. Eight additional schools of
above median NAV could be included on this list for an additional $10.5 million projection. However,
excluded from this estimated amount are F F & E costs and professional fees.
Replacement Cost- 1 High School (Below 30 GC Score) $ 5,911,716
$5,911,716 average new construction cost (Exhibit G)
Remodel Costs-22 elementary, 5 MSIJH, 5 HS (30-49GC Score) $42,215,952
$1,3 19,248.50 average remodel cost (Exhibit E) X 32
( Based on average 1995-96 major construction project costs)
FIGURE 6: Minimum Emergency Funding
In addition, schools that fall in the 50-69 point range are considered in fair to satisfactory condition
with several added or more severe problems requiring attention. A large number of schools with
below median NAV fall into this category, while even more require additions to provide adequate
facilities. Additional research could provide an estimate of this amount. The MGT Report was an
objective baseline for facility conditions assessment, but in order to avoid a second costly study,
some effort should be made to keep information up to date with reassessment following the
completion of construction projects. This study looked at the construction projects from 1995 to
present in order to continue where the report left off and determine the critical projects as yet
unaddressed for repairs. But the purpose of examining these figures was to establish approximate
critical funding needs. Planning and research should be going on now to prioritize the critical
projects, provide estimates and revise condition scores due to any further deterioration.
4.2 Hiring the Architect
Twenty-three school districts are represented in our sample of twenty-eight new construction projects.
Eleven districts are below median NAV and twelve are above. With all of the projects, the process
began with a Request for Proposal (RFP). In most cases, the RFP is available to any firm through
notice in newspapers or construction publications. However, three districts maintain a qualification list
of architectural f m s who must provide updated information and any additional project experience
annually. It is from this list that the RFP is solicited on projects for that district. Failure to respond can
cause the firm to be dropped from the list.
The next step in the process is to select a committee to review the proposals. The committees are made
up from as few as three or as large as eight members. Nearly all committees include the Superintendent
or Associate Superintendent and Business Manager for the district. In addition, 12 districts have
full time Construction ManagerIFacilities DirectorDistrict Architect or Director of Engineering as a
member on the selection committee. Nine respondents specifically mentioned including a principal or
assistant principal, two included a teacher representative and one included a parent. Additional
members might be an outside construction professional, maintenance director, personnel director, bond
consultant, technology staff, member of the Board or a purchasing director. The committee reviews the
proposals and selects a number of fums (ranging from 3-10) for further interviews or presentations.
Four districts require presentation to the governing board. Some districts have developed a set of
interview questions with a numerical rating system to evaluate the firms in this process. Upon final
ranking either by the committee or Board, the contract is awarded to the most qualified architect or the
fm with the most advantageous scope of services. Either way, the clarification of procedures in the
awarding of a professional contract should be subject to a more in-depth discussion. Consideration
should be made as to other projects they have contracted for at the same time and if adequate attention
of the firm's principals can be given to the project. A clearinghouse of resources at the state level could
collect the different evaluation forms to be used as a resource for school districts in their selection
It is at the point of award that a major difference exists in the interpretation of policies and procedures
for professional services. Thirteen of the districts award a contract to the architectural firm for 5 years
or for the period of a bond issue. Tucson Unified maintained two pools of 8-12 firms for their $348
million building bond project. However, the number of firms under a typical multiyear contract to a
district range from 1-8, with the average being four. It is from this exclusive pool that the building
projects for the next five years in that district are awarded. ARS 41-2546 describes multiterm contracts;
a few districts stated their contracts were one year, renewable for four years. The two written
requirements to use this code provision state: 1) it should cover the period of contract and be
reasonable and continuing, and 2) it should encourage effective competition or promote economies.
Yet a construction project begins and ends, and this practice tends to eliminate all but the selected firms.
It is generally agreed that the standard architectural fee for schools state wide is 6% of the
construction contract. However, seven of the respondent schools in our sample were prototypes of
previous designs so the fees were reduced accordingly. Many larger districts with annual construction
projects are using this concept successfully to hold down costs per square foot (see Exhibit G -
Paradise Valley Boulder Creek #25 and PV Elementary #26). The range of fees in our sample were
from 2% to 7% with the mode being 6%. Four of the districts had flat fee contracts with the architect
based on the construction bid price. In addition, most architects are entitled to reimbursables during
the construction phase. From the professional fee, the architect puts together a design team which
may include: civil engineer, structural engineer, mechanical, electrical and/or plumbing engineer,
kitchen consultant and landscape architect.
In the remainder of the school districts responding to this survey, the architect is hired on a project-by-project
basis. Only seventeen architectural firms are represented in our study of twenty-eight projects.
The selection of a firm solely on highest qualification appears to perpetuate a cycle of more jobs, which
makes the firm more qualified than others, which in turn gives the firm more jobs and so on.
The architect plays an integral part in the preparation of the documents used for construction bidding.
Some districts develop their own contracts, educational requirements and billing forms, but most of the
projects are using the AIA document format for each phase of construction fiom bonding to
completion. A recommendation of this study is that billing and contract documents for schools become
uniform to ease processing without reinventing existing paperwork. The AIA forms are an accepted
industry standard and cover small projects to extensive ones. However, supplemental instructions
developed by the school district may also be included. As part of the professional contract, the architect
usually oversees the construction of the building for conformity to design and specifications, as well as
verifying contractor progress payment requests through the use of periodic inspections. The control of
the project relies on the oversight of the architectural firm who designed the building and then approves
the percentage payments to the contractor.
4.3 Current Projects
From the list of current school projects over $500,000 bid January 1995 until June 1, 1996 which was
provided by the Dodge Room, the following is the amount being spent on construction projects by 50
school districts. Much more is being spent on smaller projects under $500,000 for remodellretrofit,
but for the purposes of this study, an examination of the major projects will be done. The A S & U
results showed that regionally new construction was 45% new construction with 55%
additionslremodels. Our sample is:
0 Current School Addition Projects 51 schools $130,285,842 37%
Current Remodels/Renovations 43 schools $ 55,408,437 16
FIGURE 7: School Construction Projects Over $500,000
The sample of new schools under construction consists of twenty-eight schools (Exhibit C).
The student capacity ranges from 200 students in Tuba City (K-6) to 1600 students in the
Amphitheater (K-8) school.
The size of the buildings range from 27,130 sf for Project M.O.R.E., an accommodation high
school in Tucson to the 185,500 sf (K-8) R. B. Wilson Elementary school in Amphitheater School
Some of the schools are unique because of purpose or construction. Drachman Elementary
School in Tucson (K-2) is designed to be a lower primary magnet school. Westwood Elementary
(K-3) and Madison Elementary (K-2) further a trend to house younger children separately.
Project M.O.R.E. is an accommodation high school. Frontier Elementary School in Payson is a
dome construction school (Exhibit H).
The cost of building a new school ranges from $2,680,055 for the Payson school to
Amphitheater's $13,962,270 with the average school costing $5,911,7 16.
4.4 Construction Cost Breakdowns
Cost Distributions. The cost of an average construction project in Arizona has been broken down into
the following division percentages: general 9%, sitework 9%, concrete lo%, masonry 7 % , metals
6%, wood 6%, thermal/moisture protection 3%, doors and windows 2%, finishes 9%, specialties
5 %, special construction 6%, mechanical 13 % and electrical 11 %, sales tax 3 % and change orders
O Concrete
IE lectric .Tax
FIGURE 8: Schedule of Values Distribution
Unfortunately only five schools supplied construction drawings so trade costs per square foot had to be
determine on the basis of building square foot. (Exhibit I) The extremes of a range (with the exception
of sitework) tend to be related to the design of a building and not location. However, Indian Oasis,
Tuba City and Window Rock are in the upper quartile range of costs due to providing housing for
skilled tradesmen (i.e., electrical, mechanical, plumbing and finish carpentry). In addition, it appears
that a few of the schools intend to contract for specialty items (e.g., data systems, carpeting, security,
etc.) on their own because the items are absent in the construction contract.
TRADE COSTSISF Range Average Median 11 Quartile Range
- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Masonry 11 $0.22-$14.16/sf 1]-11$6.35/sf1( $ 5.63-$7.35/sf
FIGURE 9: Schedule of Values Ranges
Average Square Foot per Student. Our study differed from the national figures for the reasons
explained in the literary research section. However, in this study the sample of the high schools
consisted of one alternative school and one large high school so the results are not representative of a
typical high school in the state. The limited sample for middle schools is made up of two junior high
schools, therefore the figures may not reflect the average Arizona middle school as compared to
national data. Two of the elementary schools are K-8 which require some additional space for junior
high activities, raising the elementary ratios. And two of the schools, namely Indian Oasis and Tuba
City, were building for future enrollment, not just immediate need. Note the high sflstudent ratio. Part
of the reason for the higher construction cost per student is because of anticipated enrollment and
reservation labor requirements, such as Davis-Bacon wages and reservation taxes. As population
increases, square foot per student and costfstudent will decrease in future years. The overall average
cost and size is more representative for this study than to break out into grade levels but comparisons 1 are provided. 7
The average sustudent of the schools overall in this study was 104. The average of the total sf in this
sample divided by the total number of students in the study is 100 sflstudent. The sflstudent in this
High School
study ranges from 73 sflstudent at Westwood Elementary (K-3) to 240 sflstudent at Indian Oasis (4-6).
FIGURE 10: Study Comparison SfIStudent
11 1
A major consideration for greater sf is that many non-classroom activity areas and corridors must be
indoors (lower net to gross ratio) and the project was building for future growth.
Cost per square foot. Due to the fact that figures in the A S & U construction report included site
acquisition costs, furniture costs and fees, a projected amount is included for comparison based on the
percentages given in Figure 5. Because site development costs are a part of Arizona construction
contracts, the balance of costs for site purchase, furnishings and fees have been added to the cost/sf
Further study would be required to ascertain if these percentages are typical statewide. Adjusted
amounts for elementary are $98.20, middle school are $109.00, and high school are $10 1.30. Note that
elementary and high school costs are lower. National figures on middle school fees as being higher do
not appear to be true in Arizona according to this study, so actual results may be below national average
also. Therefore, Arizona school construction costs are slightly lower than the national average
Middle School
A S & U AZ Study Adjusted Total
FIGURE 11: Adjusted Cost/SF
Just as in Figure 10, the site development fees and construction costs were added together and became a
percentage of the whole using the figures from Figure 5. Using this method, Figure 4 from the literary
review was expanded. Again, note the accommodation high school has skewed the results. The
number of classrooms was undetermined due to the fact that architectural drawings were not provided
by all the schools in the sample.
FIGURE 12: State Average Comparisons
There is a discrepancy between using the figures from the A S & U article and the total cost per student
based on Pena's cost analysis chart (Figure 3). In Arizona, the architectural fees are based on the
construction contract which usually includes site development cost and fixed equipment. It is for that
reason that the final line in Exhibit G used construction contract amount to calculate fees and movable
equipment rather than the straight building costs in Pena's chart. However, the range between the A S
& U percentages and the cost analysis calculations should provide an accurate costlstudent picture.
COSTISTUDENT I A S & U Percentages I Pena's Cost Analysis
I I Percentages
Elementary , $ 10,437 , $ 11,864 ------------------+-----------------+------------------
Middle School , $ 11,225 I $ 12,503
High School , $ 13,361 , $ 13,361
Figure 13: Cost Per Student
Averages. The overall average SF of a typical school in Arizona is 72,896. The average number of
students is 726, with seventeen of the twenty-eight schools being built for a range of 500 to 850
students. The cost per sf average is $83 but range from $67 in the Paradise Valley K-6 prototypes to
----i-------=-z---- =i=-- --A- - ^, __ - - -
$144 per sf at Cameron Elementary in Tuba City. The high cost per sf was due to extensive sitework,
h.__i_L_.._-- - -
special labor requirements, and general conditions. However, half of the new schools fall in the quartile
range of $74-891sf. In addition, some schools have begun to bid their own contracts on technology,
carpeting, etc. so every effort was made to include any separate contracts in the costs.
Perhaps the one innovation to watch is the dome construction in lieu of portables. (Exhibit H) The
solid concrete dome is purported to use one-half the energy of a similar sized building. Concrete
costs were high, but the remainder of the costs are consistently in the lower quartile. Payson's
Frontier Elementary also cut costs by using correctional work crews on the project. Overall, the
construction cost is about half of a traditional building. Upon completion and opening in the fall,
some rural districts will be watching this trend closely.
4.5 Contractor Concerns
3 The final piece of the construction puzzle is the contractor. Overwhelmingly, the most
difficult problem in constructing schools is the schedule. With a fall opening date, summer
construction scheduling has to be fast track, with many trades working concurrently. When
the skilled labor market is depleted, many contractors are faced with the difficulty of drawing
on the pool of workers who are less experienced and need more training and supervision.
One of the suggestions to alleviate this is to begin construction in the summer one year
previous to school opening to allow enough time for materials and trades to work without
being stacked up. This means the project needs to go to bid no later than spring and that all
the documents are prepared a year and half in advance. The current practice of bidding the
summer before shortens the construction time to eight months and jeopardizes the quality of
the project.
3 The low sealed bid system discourages quality and offers no incentive for a job well done. A
general contractor or construction manager who is contracted much like an architect can be
part of a designlbuild team. In this capacity, the contractor's assistance during the planning
stages can assist the architect and district in selecting materials and methods which are cost
efficient. The contractor would then bid the project out to subcontractors.
3 Another problem today is that many governing boards do not know how to read the
drawings, specifications, documents or billings. Expensive change orders occur when
drawings are incomplete or when items are built according to the plans but differ from the
way the governing board envisioned the building. Principals and teachers actually using the
building often want costly revisions at the end of the project if they were not a part of the
planning process. Some facilities do not fit the instructional styles of the staff and expensive
options (e.g. operable partitions, etc.) sit unused if the staff has not bought in to the concept.
A greater attempt should be made to include teachers and community members in the
planning phase. This would address neighborhood considerations and provide for expanded
use of the facilities.
3 Prototype schools can work because familiarity with the building and materials prevents
misunderstandings with the owner and builder. Schedules are predictable and fixed costs
make the project controllable. If a design works, then simple adaptation can save time and
3 When districts order their own materials such as carpeting, computer cabling, etc., the
materials arrive too early or too late and cause delays or problems during the construction.
Once more, working with a designlbuild team within the agreed schedule may alleviate this
= Some architects or school districts try to outdo each other and select expensive, but
unnecessary design features. Options should consider utilitarian value to enhance student
learning. Cost saving alternates should be considered from the general contractors who are
aware of market swings and material availability.
3 Reservation projects require Davis-Bacon wage rates and native labor requirements. Skilled
tradesmen need to be imported and housed for the course of their subcontract. In addition, a
separate tax may be added for reservation locations.
2 Single buildings are more economical than a campus.
2 All school buildings should go beyond the required codes to require fire sprinklers in every
school. Materials should be child friendly, and stair riser heights should be adapted for
lower elementary levels.
= Double bonding and transaction sales taxes cost the schools additional money.
3 Disability requirements conflict with life safety codes. Fire door closers and lever handle
requirements result in doors too tight for the disabled to open.
Many contractors were unhappy with the adversarial attitude from the school district governing board.
Most have reduced their traditional profit margin in order to bid a school, but would prefer being
treated as part of the professional team. One contractor found the use of a construction manager
impeded communication with the owner. Information was not passed on to them in a timely manner.
4.6 Conclusion
This report was meant to raise questions and spark an on-going examination for improvement in
constructing Arizona schools. The basis of this study was to determine accurate costs so solutions can
be sought. An added insight as to the school construction process should help the non-construction
professional understand how schools are built. With cost comparisons, informed choices can be made
during the design stage. Some recommendations regarding the findings in this study are:
The MGT report sat for a year while the schools deteriorated further. Without continuously
updating, the report becomes obsolete and unusable. Additions and remodels need to be
verified and projects under $500,000 compared to the list. Schools with the general
condition score of 50-69 should be listed and specific problems identified. Any projects
which have bid since June 1 should be noted and all revisions to the database made. At this
point, updating is manageable. As time passes, the challenge becomes insurmountable.
District personnel could be trained to inspect and revise scores to provide the data in-house.
The MGT report is a valuable tool to objectively determine the schools most in need of
emergency funding, but the information needs to be kept current. This study could be done
now as research to for the State Board for School Capital Facilities.
A resource bank needs to be established statewide for districts to share the best practices in
all phases of facilities management. Distribution of MGT information, educational
standards, prevention and maintenance methods, criteria for evaluating professional services,
document preparation, blueprint reading workshops, hazardous material information and
legal requirements are some of the concerns which could be addressed by a construction
clearinghouse. In addition, a recommended list of architects and contractors could be
compiled for all schools to refer to for assistance as needed. The role of the agency would be
to facilitate, not dictate.
The practice of excluding architectural firms from presenting proposals to districts for a
period of up to five years should be reexamined. New ideas and concepts in learning may
change the configuration of schools of the future, so it is not advantageous for districts to
contract for longer than a project-by-project basis. Educational reform dictates that schools
have the flexibility to change directions to keep pace with tomorrow's trends. Decisions for
prototype styles or new designs should come from a selection committee which includes a
representative number of members of the community. Their choice should reflect the site-based
vision for their neighborhood school.
This study provides the dollar breakdown of twenty-eight construction contracts for
comparison to answer the questions of costlsf, costlstudent, sflstudent, comparisons with
national findings, distribution of costs, trade costshuilding sf and state averages in current
Arizona new school construction.
Because a greater amount of the school construction dollar will be spent on additions and
remodels in the near future, a similar study should be done on those current projects to
accurately project range of costs and address problems common to school buildings.
A supplemental fund should be set up for schools with extensive sitework, demolition or
adjacent ways required. The additional amount should be awarded on a project-by-project
basis after a review of the site conditions. This fund will help equalize costs for an
undeveloped area.
Arizona Department of Administration, Procurement Rules & Regulations. ARS 41-2578.
Procurement of Specified Professional Services ARS 41-2533 Competitive Sealed Bidding.
Agron, J. (1996, May) Building by the Book. American School & University. v. 68 n. 9,
Agron J. (1995, October) Building the Model School. American School & University. v. 68
Carter, D., Scarbrough, T. K., Spain, S. (1989, May) Estimating Building Costs. American
School Board Journal (Supplement: Building Education). v 176 n. 5, p. A1 l-A15.
Crowe T. D. (1990, Fall) Designing Safer Schools. School Safety. p. 9-13
Glass, T. E. (1994, July) Do you know buildings? Facility Planning Knowledge and Skills.
School Business Affairs, v. 60 n. 7, p. 16-19.
Glass, T. E. (1994, January) Lost in Space: Assessing the Adequacy of School Facilities.
School Business Affairs v.60 n. 1, p. 13-20.
Halsted, H. (1992, October) Designing Facilities for a New Generation of Schools,
Educational Technology. v. 32 n. 10, p. 46-48.
Hubbard, J. (1994, December). An Educational Facility Renaissance in the St. Louis Schools.
School Business Affairs. v.60 n. 12, p. 51-52.
Keegan, L. G. (1996, March) Plan for Education in Arizona. Arizona Department of
McKinley, J. (1991, January) Construction Manager or General Contractor? Selecting the
Right One for You. School Business Affairs. v.57 n. 1, p. 12-15.
MGT of America, Inc. (1995, June) Arizona School Facilities Review. Final Summary
Report. (12-5-95 Updated database) (1995, May) Statewide School Facilities Needs Assessment
Study. Submitted to the Joint Committee on Capital Review.
Oetzel, M. (1994, June) Right from the Start: Constructing a Healthy School. School
Business Affairs. v.60 n. 6, p. 4-8.
Ovard, G. F., Kirchenstein, J., Lee, K. L. (1991, December) Blueprint for Growth.
Executive Educator. v. 13 n. 12, p. 32-34.
Pena, W. (1987) Problem Seeking. 3rd edition. Washington. AIA Press.
Rydeen, J. E. (1993, April) Designs for Learning: Education is Changing-and so are School
Buildings. American School Boards Journal. v. 180 n. 4, p. 34-36.
United States General Accounting Office. (1995, November) SCHOOL FACILITIES: States'
Financial & Technical Support Varies.
United States General Accounting Office (1996, June) SCHOOL FACILITIES: America's
School's Report Differing Conditions.
United States General Accounting Office (1996, June) SCHOOL FACILITIES: Profiles of
School Condition by State.
EXHIBIT A: MGT Average Building Condition Scores/School
---- Indicates school districtfigures previously charted (see above)
* indicates some renovation has been done
Exhibit B:
Reprinted with Permission of:
Al Navarette
Sunnpside Unified Schooi D i d No.12
Exhibit C: New Construction Proiects 1995-1996
1 Amphitheater USD Richard B. Wilson ArostGoldblatt D.L. Withers 90%
I Elementary (K-8) I / USD Elementary # 14 (K-6) Gilleland & D.L. Withers
. ,
I Indian Oasis-Babo Indian Oasis Intermediate Hanson Group Francis Construction 95%* 1 USD (4-6)
I Kyrene ESD 56th StlRay Rd. 0rcuttn;Vinslow D.L. Withers 95%* 1
1 K. -6), Thacker 1
I Paradise Valley Desert Ridge MS (7-8) Durrant Architects D.L. Withers 9%
1 Crandall Ormond Builders I
i usD
Cheyenne Elementary (K- Hickman Shafer D.L. Withers 82%
8) Turley Beck
1 Phoenix ESD Capitol Elementary (K-6) Orcutt/Winslow Allied Construction 57%* 1
I Elementarv (K-5) 1
1 Associates I
I Project More HS (9-12) Burns & Wald- Lloyd Construction 85%*
1 Window Rock USD Ft. Defiance Elementary Rossman Luther Construction 55% 1
Schneider Gadbury
Shav 1 * indicates percentage of completion prior to May 31,1996
$ 646,800
$1 1,351,000
$ 1,816,000
$ 3,472,000
$ 5,260,000
$ 2,000,000
$ 3,110,000
$ 4,136,000
$ 3,466,000
$ 1,430,000
$ 1,768,000
$ 4,369,400
$ 1,750,000
$ 2,555,892
$ 727,580
$ 2,627,000
$ 1,017,000
$ 2,101,000
$ 1,000,3 14
$ 1,052,680
$ 3,525,500
$ 536,167
$ 3,627,000
$ 2,547,725
$ 2,994,000
$ 4,127,000
$ 2,707,000
$ 7,010,000
$ 900,000
$ 1,863,000
$ 720,000
$ 1,630,000
$ 945,500
$ 941,547
$ 3,285,000
$ 1,017,000
$ 838,330
$ 729,000
$ 1,100,000
$ 939,700
$ 2,200,000
$ 4,887,207
$ 5,000,000
$ 1,291,000
$ 2,451,500
Maryvale High School
Deer Valley High School
Winslow USD
Moon Vally/Apollo
Blue Ridge
Tolleson HS
Balsz Griffith
Douglas JH
Cartwright Elementary
Palo Verde Elementary
Agua Fria HS
Huachuca/Walter Meyer El.
Maryvale HS
Camp Verde
Sopori Elementary
Taft Elementary
Ganado HS
Orange Grove
Kyrene del CieloNinos
Laugharn Elementary
Clifton Elementary
Alta Loma
Humboldt Elementary
Melvin Sine Elementary
Rose Lane Elementary
William C. Jack Elementary
Catalina HS
Justine Spitalny
Glendale HS/Washington HS
Middle School (Tucson)
Desert Shadows
San Carlos HS
Garfield Elementary
Catalina Foothills
Lincoln Elementary
Jefferson Elementary
Mac Arthur
Alma School
Deer Valley
Mountain View HS
Mt. Elden MS (Flagstaff)
Alhambra Traditional
Fountain Hills
Salpointe HS
Catalina Aerotechnology
$130,285,842 Total Estimated Additions Cost
$ 2,714,288 Average Addition Project Cost
Phx UHSD
Deer Valley USD
Winslow USD
Glendale UHSD
Blue Ridge USD
Tolleson UHSD
Balsz ESD
Douglas USD
Cartwright ESD
Casa Grande ESD
Agua Fria UHSD
Tombstone USD
Phx UHSD
Camp Verde USD
Sahuarita USD
Payson USD
Mesa USD
Ganado USD
Catalina Foothills USD
Kyrene ESD
Clifton USD
Clifton USD
Peoria USD
Humboldt USD
Glendale ESD
Madison ESD
Glendale ESD
Cartwright ESD
Glendale UHSD
Paradise Valley USD
San Carlos USD
Phoenix ESD
Catalina Foothills USD
Mesa USD
Mesa USD
Phoenix ESD
Mesa USD
Mesa USD
Mesa USD
Deer Valley USD
Mesa USD
Alhambra ESD
Fountain Hills USD
Alhambra ESD
Kayenta USD
32 school districts
District Kitchen
Fine Arts
4 buildings
3 bldg. IAdmin
Phase I1
Multi Use
Multi Use
Multi purpose
Phase 111
Music Hall
$ 1,318,700 Pueblo Gardens Elementary
$ 3,029,000 Alhambra HS
$ 2,083,000 MeyerMudson Elementary (Tempe)
$ 1,298,000 Hughes Elementary
$ 735,000 Sabino HS
$ 1,942,000 Marshall Elementary
$ 885,800 Robison Elementary
$ 1,053,950 Cavett Elementary
$ 2,190,000 Pueblo HS
$ 1,43 1,000 Hollinger Elemenatry
$ 1,413,400 Miles Elementary
$ 1,011,818 Fruchthendler Elementary
$ 1,126,200 Schumaker Elementary
$ 978,600 Van Home Elementary
$ 1,208,000 Wrightstown Elementary
$ 1,186,746 Ford Elementary
$ 718,450 Borman Elementary
$ 1,047,959 Blenrnan Elementary
$ 1,349,700 Cragin Elementary
$ 826,200 Bloom Elementary
$ 1,374,200 Brichta Elementary
$ 2,158,200 ClawsoniFarasIA AveISarah Marley
$ 955,000 Borton Elementary
$ 1,352,000 Vesey Elementary TUSD
$ 635,000 Warren Elementary TUSD
$ 1,117,000 Shadow Mountain HS
$ 759,480 Agua Caliente Elementary
$ NIA Salpointe HS
$ 521,000 O.C. Johnson Elementary
$ 5,000,000 HaydedWinkelrnan
$ 1,105,000 Santa Rita HS
$ 708,430 Cooling System
$ 1,475,000 Deer Valley
$ 615,500 CESL/Classroom renovation
$ 1,770,000 Desert Foothills
$ 1,883,376 Manzanita Elementary
$ 1,840,000 Saguaro HS
$ 1,007,000 Flagstaff HS
$ 1,469,000 Trevor Brown HS
$ 699,000 Sturgeon Cromer Elementary
$ 768,790 Collier Elementary
$ 807,638 Davidson Elementary
$ 554,300 Howell Elementary
$55,408,437 Total Remodel Project Costs
Phoenix UHSD
Tempe ESD
Douglas USD
Paradise Valley USD
Tanque Verde USD
Yuma ESD
Hayden Winkelman USD
Deer Valley USD
Washington ESD
Washington ESD
Scottsdale USD
Flagstaff USD
Phoenix UHSD
Flagstaff USD
$ 1,3 19,248.50 Average Remodel Project Cost 13 Districts
Note: Any items with a star have been listed with another item on the sheet. The pay application lkted
the two items together.
General Data-Contract Documents, Drawings, Specifications
BOND, INSURANCE, PERMITS- This includes the cost of Payment and Performance Bonds required
for the project, Contractor's additional Liability Insurance required for
project coverage, and all permits required for construction.
Allowances: Moneys set aside for certain items which are difficult to give exact quotes in the
bid, or to cover small overages which occur during construction. This prevents
contract change orders. Any amount left over is usually credited back to the owner.
Supewision/Inspection: Cost of professional services outside of their contract (e.g. use of
construction manager, special inspection by a structural engineer, etc.).
Fee: Contractor's project construction fee (usually a % of total project cost).
Material Testing: Core samples, concrete or asphalt batch testing to meet specifications.
Division 1 -GENERAL CONDITIONS
General Conditions: All contractor's costs for project management. This includes
superintendent's wages, temporary labor, temporary jobsite power, any
materials for maintenance or clean up, dumpsters, porta jons, etc.
Start up/Mobilize: What it takes to get a project started on a location. This includes construction
trailers, temporary fencing, barricades, etc.
Suwey: Any survey work required in the course of the project.
Demolition/Asbestos Removal: Tearing down any existing structures on site for the new
Division 2-SITE WORK
Earthwork: Includes preparation and grading of the site, including any import or export.
PavingIStriping: Any asphalt work including subgrade materials to prepare a roadway or lot.
Drywell: A rocked hole which was drilled to hold standing water until it is absorbed into the
Utilities: The delivery of sewer, water, power connections to the building site.
Pest Control: Site of building slab sprayed to prevent termite and pest infestation.
Irrigation/Landscaping: Sprinkler system and planting of trees, plants, shrubs, etc. on grounds.
Fencing: Permanent fencing, includes ornamental metal and chain link.
Site Accessories: Exterior bicycle racks, permanent benches, etc.
Division 3- CONCRETE
Building Concrete: Includes, slabs, footings, structural concrete included in the building.
Rebar: Metal reinforcement put into concrete for support.
Site Concrete: Sidewalks, curbs, exterior slabs for access or use of the building.
PrecastlForms: Concrete structures already cast and formed when brought to jobsite.
Division 4-MSONRY
Building Masonry: Units of blocks, bricks, glass constructed by mortaring rows (courses).
Rebar: Metal reinforcement overlapping between courses for strength and stability.
Site: Use of brickwork or blockwork on fences, freestanding walls, etc. on the building site.
Division 5-METALS
Division 5-METALS
Structural: Metal pieces which carry the load of the building (e.g. lintels, beams, joints,etc.).
Metal RoofICanopyDeck: Metal structures used for a roof or overhead cover.
Miscellaneous Metals: Steel railings, ladders, stairs, etc. to be installed in the building.
Division 6- WOOD
Rough CarpentryFraming: The forming a skeleton of the building with wood columns, beams,
rafters, etc. to which the covering of the building may be applied.
Millwork: Finished wood materials manufactured at a planing mill or shop. Cabinets are
included in this category for our study.
Finish Carpentry: Installation of doors, baseboards, trimwork, mantels, etc. made of wood.
Install Doors: Install frames and hang doors, including metal doors.
Division 7-THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION
Insulation: Installation of material to prevent thermal, moisture or sound transfer by creating a
barrier or block
Waterproofing is the process to seal any leaks with a barrier or applying a
compound which repels water.
Caulking is the filling of any cracks or crevices, using a putty-like compound to
make it airtight.
Sealants are applied to expansion joint surfaces to prevent moisture but allow
for some movement. Included are fire retardant coatings.
Roofing: The process and material to cover the outside top of a building.
FlashingISheet Metal: Metal used to cover joints in roof for waterproofing or trim work around
roof accessories.
Roof AccessoriesISkylights: Vents, louvers, hatches, etc. installed on the roof for ventilation,
light, or access.
Division 8-DOORS/WINDO WS
Hollow Metal Doors: Doors and frames made of lightweight metal with a hollow core.
Wood Doors: Any doors and frames made of wood.
Hardware: Locksets, door handles, drawer pulls, etc. for doors, windows, cabinets.
Overhead DoorsIGrilles: A roll up cover for an opening, usually on an overhead track.
GlassIGlazing: Window systems.
Division 9-FINISHES
Stucco/Plaster: Cement-like paste applied to wall surfaces. Stucco is exterior plaster.
Drywall: Wallboard applied in sheets to finish walls, including wood or metal framing.
Painting: Wall coloring applied to surfaces.
TileIStone: Ceramic tile or stone used as a surface for floors, counter tops, walls, etc.
Vinyl Composition Tile: Resilient flooring or wall material laid down in sheets or tiles made of
linoleum,cork, rubber, asphalt or plastic.
Carpet: Floor covering made of wool, acrylic, nylon, polyester or olefin fibers in a rug form.
Wood Floor: Floors used in school gymnasiums and stages.
Acoustic: Sound absorbing materials for covering walls and ceiling.
Division 10-SPECIALTIES
Toilet Partitions and Accessories: Restroom dividers and hardware (e.g. dispensers, tiolet paper
Vault/Flagpole: Metal safe for the office.
Metal flagpole and base for outside school.
Bleachers/Lockers: Mounted telescoping bleacher systems mounted to walls in schools. Locker systems
installed permanently to the building.
Athleticfflayground Equipment: Permanent installation of sports specific equipment or
permanent playground equipment.
Fire Resistant Panels/Wall Panels/Fiberglass Panels: Special wall coverings installed in
panels for safety, maintenance or
aesthetic reasons.
Movable Partitions: Wall dividers, either manually or electrically operated, which will divide a
room into smaller sections.
Signage: Appropriate signs placed in the building for exit, restrooms, etc. Also includes exterior
building sign and/or marquee.
Automatic Door: Device installed to automatically open door when sensor is activated.
Ramada/Markings/Shadescreen: Exterior shaded areas on the site. Special outdoor markings
for hopscotch, basketball courts, etc.
Division 1 1 -SPECIAL EQUIPMENT
Fire Extinguishers and Cabinets: Cabinets and tanks for extinguishing fires.
TV BracketslAppliances: Mounting apparatus for classroom sets. Residential-type appliances
for teacher's room, classrooms, etc.
Corner Guards, Hooks, Storage Units: Wall protection devices, coat hooks or metal shelving.
Stage Equipment: Stage rigging and curtains for performing area.
Audiovisual/Projection Screens: Mounted monitors or screens for large group viewing.
Division 12-SPECIAL FURNISHINGS
Curtains, blinds, Mats: Window coverings, cubicle curtains, or school floor mats for permanent
building use.
Chalkboards, Tackboards, Markerboards: Classroom display boards permanently mounted to
Furniture: Permanently affixed furniture (e.g. auditorium seats, library tables, computer desks).
Division 13-SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
Food Sewice: Cafeteria area and industrial kitchen for serving large numbers of meals.
Division 14-CONVEYANCE
Elevator: Electrical device for moving materials up and down floors (includes dumbwaiters).
Division 15-MECHANICAL
Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning: The air handling system that heats, cools and
circulates within the building.
Test & Balance: Checking out HVAC system and making adjustments to controls.
Plumbing: Water and gas delivery system, including piping, fixtures and waste removal.
Division 16-ELECTRICAL
Electrical: All circuits, wiring, machinery, lighting in a building.
Fire Protection: The alarm system coupled with a sprinkler system for fire protection.
Security: A system for detecting motion or heat on secured premises. Also includes surveillance
and detection devices.
Data/Sound/Intercom Systems: Communication system for networking data, sound or intercom
schoolwide through wires, cables, etc.
Change Orders: Additions to a contract after the course of construction has begun. These items were not
included in the bid.
Uncoded Change Orders - some items were identified and could be put into one of the categories,
this is the remainder of the change order which could not be coded.
Total Change Orders - Total dollar change to the original Construction Contract.
Sales Tax: The amount paid by the contractor for transaction priviledge tax. Tax rates vary by location.
Prime contractors do not have to pay sales tax on labor expenses (35% standard deduction).
Sales Tar %- CONTRACT TOTAL AMT. SALES TAX 1 65% PROJECT COST =
PROJECT COST X 65% (35% deduction for labor)
Contractor's Conditions + Fees %: Many contractors lump these items togethe, therefore it is hard to
isolate actual management costs from profit.
SF: Square foot total of the building. Information is from the district, architect or drawings.
Cost/SF: Cost of Construction per square foot, excluding site purchase, furniture, fixtures and equipment,
professional fees, administrative costs and contingencies.
Students: Number of-students the building was designed to house. This number was given by the
architect or district.
SFtStudent: TOTAL SF OF BUILDINGNMBER OF STUDENTS = SF/STUDENT
Construction CosffStudent: TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTINUMBER OF STUDENTS =
Total Cosff Student: Figures based on a cost analysis chart provided by William Pena (1987).
+ 15% CONSTRUCTION COSTISTUDENT (Movable Equipment 5-20%)
+ 6% CONSTRUCTION COSTJSTUDENT (Professional Fees 5- 10%)
+ 10% CONSTRUCTION COSTISTUDENT (Contingencies 5-1 5%)
+ 3% CONSTRUCTION COST/STUDENT (Site Acquisition 2-3%)
+ 1% CONSTRUCTION COSTISTUDENT (Administrative Costs 1-2%)
n Bmcka/Appll- I $5.324
wardlHmks/SWM $ 1.326 i
Sac Equlpmcnt 1 56.290 SB.500 I $2.950 54.500
Auda Vlrvrl /PmJecuon %- i 54.586
$28.505 1 $28.805
$205.489 1 $207.226
MIIIwoI~ $1 16.665 i 51 16.665
Bulldlngj $989.3 15
FlnUh C-vy
l n s ~ lDl mn
' $1.106.401 I $479.745 i $469.806
1 $16.726 /
~ ~ u a u r a l ! $%0.000
Mecal RmClCanopylDeckl
Mlsrrllaneous M~US/
$722.245 I $421.900 1 $340.360 / S88.W i $101.000
$20.804 i $18.804
S207.WO ! $10,195 i $9.695
$103.700 i $53.428 i $79.995
flashln~shecmt etali
~m~~cccssorks/~kyllghui $26.464
$16.438 ! $12.705
$159,746 1 $191.620,
Hollow Melal DmrslAeocu 5236.09 1 $69.032 I 532.380
$27,917 1 59.364 1 $9.364
56.949 1 $5.995 1 $5.995
Wmd Dmn
Overhead DoonlCnlk
1 $23.103 1 $29.134
I $45.813 i 582.225
$6.020 1 53.625
t84.468 / $17.056 1 $23.000
i I I I I I 1
Tow Chaw Ordm 1 1 I l$100.18311
Salslax96 I 6.7681 7.23961 6.62%( 6.53961 0.00% 7.389Cl 5.8596
ConWactor olCandlt&n. r Fcc % 1 3.984! 2.53%/ 25%1 2 . 2 ~ 1 9.93961 4.94961 3.56%
I I i I !
MHlBrr GNe*r School CoMludon Pmjgts 1995-96 62
~u~ldmr(/ $345.074
t Q..-, -07 -
$646.192 1 $345.660
$52.130 /
MHIBITG-New School ConBtutbn Pmjecls 1995%
UNCODED CHANCE ORDERS 1 I $482.297 1 540191 1 540.19l
SALES TAX ~~9.4I 1i 55.143.712
COKlRACT107AL I 95.850.900 I $4.454.851 j 5 165.528.058
TOW Change O r b I U80.900 1 $7.151 1 $4.257.345
SPlesLaX96 1 0.00srl 3.51%/ 4.9396
Conwactor Condltmn. * FOC 96 ' I 0.81961 8.7W1
5266,084 1
3.2670 1
Reprinted with Permission of:
Frederick L. Crandall
Figure I I Figure 2
Figure 3 Figure 4
... - ' layer of sbotcrete (sprayed concrete) is applied to the interior of the in-
. !Md fwm. Heavy mats of rebar arc then placed against the shotcrete.
Another layer of shotaete is applied to achieve the engineered thickness
EXHIBIT I -Trade Costs/ New School Bullding SF 1995-96 65
DlSTRlCT ALHAMBRA AMPHI 'CHANDLER FL WELLS GILBERT GLNDLE HMBLT IND OASIS KYRENE MADISON MARANA
SCHOOL SEVILLA WESTWD WIlSOh #I4 HENDRCKS GRNFLD #I4 BRSHW MT IND OASIS 56IRAY MADISON PCIR RK
BONDlINSURANCUPERMlTS $070 $099 $1 43 $0 84 $0 81 $179, $0 38 $0 78 $I 35 $2 42 $1 08
Allo~anco $520 $093 $208 $164 $039 $013 $031 1103 $0 46
Suprrvatodlmpecnon $0 73
Frr $271 $210 SO67 $188 $218 SO00 $000
Matenal Testnp $0 29 $0 33 $0 2.5 $0 16 $017 SO12
Ceneral Condxtlons $I 68 $2 00 $162 $000 SO15 $172 $192 $314 $207 $178 $177
SlarruplMobtltrs $0 27 $0 53 $0 58 $0 21 $1 08 $0 00 $0 78 -- $006 $0 37
Survey SO19 $025 SO 18 $0 18 $0 26 $0 33 $0 36
Demol!tradAsbesros Removal 52 73 $3 00 1 $017 $040
Eanhwork $3 39 $1 78 $0 89 $4 15 $2 23 $5 51 $0 I5 $2 59 $7 05 $0 33 $2 2.5 $4 58
Pavtnglsmprng $0 74 $I 00 $3 08 $1 88 $0 95 $1 07 $1 27
W l l $0 46 $0 30 $0 17 $0 22 $0 13
Ut!l~l~cr $1 13 $0 46 $2 94 $1 86 SI 43 ' $5 55 $3 00 $1 46 $3 71 $1 66 I $1 96 $2 41
Pestcontrol SOIS $016 $009 $016 $031 $0 34 $ 0 1 8 $ 0 1 5 $025 $021
IrngatroniLandscaptng 12 21 $1 67 $0 94 $1 93 $2 96 $2 74 1 $1 94 $0 50 $0 63 $I 32 $2 77
Fencmne, $0 75 $0 81 $0 22 $0 44 $0 58 $0 89 $0 23 $0 42 50 81 $0 12 I $0 79
Sue Acceasonr, $0 09 $0 48 1 $0 07 , $006 $0 12
Bulldxne $5 65 i $4 77 ' $7 76 $6 12 $6 32 ' $2 99 1 $8 62 $4 % $7 32 1 $6 17 $3 62 55 01
Rebar 1 $ 0 8 2 $0711 SO 12 I so 37
Site Corrrete $0 53 $ 1 5 8 $380 $244 $167
RcurtIFormr $3 27 $3 22 $0 07
Offslrn $066
Build~ng $5 27 $5 93 $5 71 $5 07 , $6 25 1 $4 28 1 $10 58 $6 21 514 16 $5 51 $5 56 I 15 68
Rebar $0 21 $0 33 1 $0 35 $0 19 $0 59
Slrel $0 23 $0 38 I $0 55
SUucNral Sl 49 S1 64 1 14 26 1 Sl I5 $2 84 1 51 20 $0 95 $3 39 $9 24 I $4 85 $403 $1 81 '
Metal RooflCanopylDcck $1 41 Sl 85 $0 75 $1 81 53 09 1 S2 13 $150 SO23 $3291 $151
Mtsvrllaneour Mctalr $0 05 $0 18 $0 I2
~ouehFmnng/ $446 $ 4 9 0 $057 $469 S32Z1 $438 $917 Y84I $011, $035 $4 23
Mnllwork 52 68 $2 33 I $2 05 $2 22 I 1 $2 48 $2 61 $0 99 $1 32 16 77 $2 90 $2 40-
Fxrush Carpcnvy 5 2 % $0141
lmtall Doors $0 12 I $0 16 $0 24 $0 43
THERhlAUMOISTLRE PROTECI I 1 $000 I I
lmulat~on SO 96 $0 95 $0 92 1 $0 52 $0 48 $0 86 I $1 07 $0 65 SO 68 ' $0 92 $0 84 ' SO 59
WarerproofICaulk~n~l~ant $0 14 SO 16 $0 36 $0 13 1 $0 23 1 $0 18 1 $1 34 $0 21 $0 15 $2 45 ' $0 21
Roofinel $0 80 $0 92 I SI 40 $2 09 $0 17 , $0 70 I $1 25 I $2 04 , $2 20 $2 28 $1 69
RarhmelShcct Metal 1 SO 05 '
Rwf AcccssanesiSkyltgh~s, $0 02 $004 $005 $024 $017 $ 0 0 8 $217 $019
Hollow Metal DoonlAcccssl $0 56 $0 43 I $0 38 $0 38 $0 28 $0 46 SO 97 $1 48 $0 88 ' $0 37 ' $0 66 $0 81
Wood Dmn SO26 , SO28 $0 16 $0 10 $038 ' $031 SO 21 SO 30 I $0 33 $0 33 $0 19
Hardware $0 63 SO 72 51 I $0 59 $0 69 $0 73 $0 88 1 0 5 9 $0951 $080 $081
Overhud DoonlGnlle SO 19 $0 19 $0 07 1 $0 02 I I $007 $005 $0041 SO08 SO12
G1~rlGlume $0 41 $0 41 I $1 24 SO 44 $1 57 1 $0 19 $0 28 $0 53 $0 22 $0 26 SO 26 $0 46
S~cca/Plartcr $0 24 $0 22 1 $0 32 1 $0 08 $0 19 1 $0 47 $0 43
W l $4 48 $3 40 $2 37 $3 09 14 67 $3 73 1 $1 84 $2 69 $3 75 $4 32 $4 94 12 76
Palntmg $ 0 7 3 $086 $1 30 $0 65 $0 86 $071 1128 $138 $069 $065
TdelStonel $0 95 11 01 $1 02 1 SO 77 $1 27 1 $1 27 I $0 58 $0 65 $0 64 $0 85 Si 01 $0 80
Vmyl Compos~tronT lle $2 05 SI 75 $1 62 $0 28 I $1 23 1 $1 50 ' $0 41 5110 $0311 $048 $041 $028
Wood Floor I I
A C O U ~ ~ C $0 84 $0 75 Sl 00 $0 74 1 $1 35 $1 06 $0 69 $0 64 $0 88 $0 85 $0 82 1 $1 14-
Todet Panttlonr & Accerroner SO 54 $0 51 I SO 28 $0 28 $0 65 $0 35 1 $0 20 1 $0 27 1 $0 20 $0 33 $0 37
VaultiFbepole $0 02 1002 I $0 03 $0 03 1 $001 $ 0 0 I SO04
BlcachcnILoek~n~ 1 1 $0 04 SO 82 $0 26 $0 01 1 $0 02
ArhlarIPlypd Equipment SO 35 ' $006 $018 $02.5 $046 $053 $0041 $017 SO02 $005
Frc Rers~anr PaneliWall Rnls $0 23 $0 03 SO 01 $0 07 10 07
Movable Panitlonr S 1 0 8 $0311 1 I 1 1 $019 $047
Slenaee $0 09 $0 09 $0 01 I $0171 $0 03 I $0 I8 $0 16
Auto Dcar Owr $0 06
Ruluda/ MarlnesIShadescmn 1 $005 1 1 $0 16 I $013 $025
FIE Extlnpushers $002 , $003 $0 Ol $0 05 $0 Ol $0 02
TV BrackersIAppll~es $0 07 I $0 00 $0 05
Comr G~a~dlHooklStorage 1 SO 02 $004 $ 0 0 0 $002
Stage Equkpmcml 5008 $014 $004 $009 $000 $001 $008 $005 $009
Audto Vsual iRolecrnon Scmn $006 $002 $003 $006
Cunams/BlmdrlMa~I s $0 03 $0 01 $009 $012 $011 SO05 $010 SO02 $017 $017
ChalWTacklMarkcr Boards $0 90 $0 68 $0 23 $0 47 $0 34 $0 39 $015 $ 0 5 9 $071 $034
Furmuue 1 1 $0 10 $023 SO00
~ o o d ~ c l v ~ u ' $0 95 $0 78 $0 93 $009 $0 33 $1 03 $0 70 $1 51 $022 $1 33
Elevator I $0 12 1 $038 1 $020
Hcatlne Vcntthton ArCondrnonmg $4 % $4 18 $10 65 $9 17 58 69 $8 88 $4 85 $8 49 $12 12 ' SIO 59 $12 35 55 85
Test & Balanec $013 1 1 $0 11 I $0 13 , $0 15 11 48 $0 19
Plvmbrng $4 14 13 90 $3 42 $3 90 $2 94 ' $3 74 $3 54 $4 24 I $4 19 $4 82 $3 53
Elccmcal 59 14 $8 19 18 49 $7 10 $8 04 $10 80 $8 21 $10 69 1 $9 00 $9 33 $6 93 $8 24
Flm Rolen!on $0 63 $0 76 $119 $083: $064 $141 $131' $ 0 8 7 $094 1084 5156
*mV $0 15 I $0 13 I $0 02
DaglSoundilntcrcom 1 $070 $1 92 $060 1 $1 38
CONTRACT TOTAL (ercl fees) $72 34 $69 83 575 27 $72 10 $80 57 Y18 57 1 $69 50 177 38 $90 81 $84 99 1 $84 IS $76 97
EXHIBIT I -Trade Costs/ New School Buildlng SF 199596 66
DISTRJCT MESA PV PAYSON PEORIA PHX ClN CRK SCTTSDL SNNYSIDE TNOVRDE
SCHOOL CYTETRL B BUSH DSRTRDG BLDR CRK nz6 FRNTR CHYENNE CAPITOL QN CRK EL CACTUS MSSN MNR TNQVRDE
Allowances $1 08 $1 40 $1 72 ' $1 97 $1 97 $12 11 $008 $182 $0 38 $0 13
Superv~srodlmpcctton $0 23 $0 23 $0 10
Fec $OW $193 $0 W $4 53 53 64 $2 71 $382 $000 $000
Maed Trstlng SO 34 $0 46 $0 46 $0 17 $0 I5 $0 34
General Conda~on* $1 7 51 34 $2 29 $1 68 $1 51 $2 39 $003 $1 00 $OW $1 14 $3 48
StarmpIMobdlre 1$0 37 $0 17 $0 21
Survey $0 18 $021 $027 $021 SO20 1 $0 14
Demolatod&bestos Removal I $0 91 1
Eanhwork $2 29 $2 36 $3 28 $1 24 $1 27 $1 04 $I 72 $2 I5 $1 75 $3 90 $2 41 $5 68
Pav~nglsmpmne $1 74 SO 97 SO 84 SO % $1 29 $093 $133 $130 $2 33
Drywell $0 27 $0 15
Ut~llilrs $2 07 , $1 10 $2 39 , $0 74 $1 28 $0 55 $2 03 $1 45 $2 00 52 32 $0 58 $3 02
Pert Control $0 22 $0 14 $0 13 $0 15 SO 15 $0 15 $027 $0 17 $0 14 $0 18 $0 19
Irngat~orAmdscap~ $3 16 SI 61 $3 10 $2 07 $2 06 $1 97 $1 89 $2 31 $2 52 1 $3 97
Ferrmn~ $0 80 $0 10 $1 43 $0 55 $1 40 $0 49 $0 73 SO 78 I $0 78 $0 91 $0 84
Snr Accessone, I $0 20 $0 07 $0 20 $025 $004 $002
Bulldlng $4 83 $4 49 $5 09 $5 04 $5 60 $15 59 $3 79 $4 86 I $4 05 $4 31 1 $4 71 $4 86
Rebar $0 37 $0 31 $0 24 1 SO 46 1 $0 97 $0 62
S~teC oncrcte $1 55 $1 01 $4 72 $3 79 $3 65 $3 81 $2 25 $0 98 $1 53
Rsas~IForms SO 07 $1 05 1
Offs,tr I
Butldmp $5 68 $7 59 $7 33 $6 59 SO 96 56 42 $6 42 $6 08 $8 21 ' $5 85 $10 I2
Rebar $0 59 $031 $047 56 80 $0 18 1 $066 $0 74
Srtr $0 47 $0 48 I I
Metal RoaflCanopylDcckj $I 45 $2 22 $3 95 $4 39 1 $3 13 $3 35 ' $1 86 $3 79 $4 54 $0 66
M~sullancousM etals' $0 16 I I $025 $DM $OM $019
Rough F m w $4 27 $0 03 $0 17 I 1 $4 59 $4 82 $0 22 / $4 80 1 $6 73 $3 28
M~llworkj $2 40 $2 55 $3 85 $2 62 $2 43 $2 32 1 $1 60 $2 62 1 $1 71 $306 $331
Fmlsh Carpenny 1 $0 I2 1 $0 26 $0 11 SO 17 $2 41 $0 59 $0 21
ImrallDoors $039 1 $0 18 $0 15 , $0 18 ! $021 1 I $028 $031 $010, $0 36
~mvlatlon $0 59 $0 68 1 $0 36 I $0 43 1 $0 44 $0 20 $0 69 $0 82 $0 64 $0 88 $0 83 $0 45
~arcmmofl~aullungl~cal~~' $0 20 1 $0 47 $0 17 ' $0 20 $0 16 $0 15 $021 $045 $020 $166
Roofme $1 69 $4 06 $1 77 $0 27 ' $0 26 1 $1 44 $2 43 1 1 $0 62 $2 56
FlarhlngiSheet Mcml ' $0 12 1 $ 0 1 5 $0251 $0 67
Roaf Accersoner/Skyl~ghu I $1 97 $0 05 1 SO 03 i $002 11% $106 $003 $007 $009
Hollow Metal Doorsl~ccessl $0 81 $0 42 $0 63 $0 30 $0 32 $1 51 $023 $ 0 7 3 $ 0 7 2 $051, $ 0 8 1 $165
Wood ~oorrl $0 19 $0 30 1 $0 17 1 $0 26 $0 24 $0 23 $0 32 $0 27 1 $0 26 1 SO 32 $0 06 $0 IS
Hardware $081 WS7 $073 $06S $066 $071 $091 $067 $042 $081 $084
Overhead DoorsiGnllr $0 I2 $0 08 $0 23 $0 17 i SO 17 1 $0051 $033 $011 $006 $006 $004
GlasriGlazrne $0 46 $0 10 1 $0 I8 $0 04 ' $0 04 $0 I5 SO 04 $0 20 $0 29 SO 12 $0 23 $0 52
S~ccolPIvter $0 64 $0 16 $0 36 $0 38 j 1 $108 $02.5
Dlyuail $276 $ 2 2 5 $ 3 6 4 5273 $270 $ 5 0 7 $284 $464 $164 1 1 % $198 $172
Fasntme SO 65 SO 66 $0 79 1 $0 68 SI 03 $0 65 $1 W $1 28 $0 85 $0 67 $0 27
TdeIStonel $0 80 $1 46 , $0 79 $0 86 $0 61 1 $1 41 I SO58 $067 1 $078 $1 14 $1 08
Vmyl Comps~t~onTde $0 28 $0 30 1 $0 81 $0 24 $0 33 Sl 57 ; $1 83 SO 40 $043 $0 73 51 60 $0 51
Carpn $ 0 7 7 $024 ($1 14) $1 09 $1 45 $1 13
Wood Roar, $079 1 I I $0 I2
Acaustlc $1 14 $1 76 $0 69 1 $0 77 $0 70 $1 70 $0 76 j SO 83 1 $0 74 I $0 73 $0 75
Totlet Panlrlonr & Accessones $0 37 $0 32 1 $0 25 I SO 34 SO 37 1 $0 10 1 $0 31 1 $0 39 $0 27 $0 44 $0 23 $0 37
V a u l ~ m a p o p $0 04 1 $0 05 $0 03 1 $ 0 SO03 $0041 $009 $002
BleachenlLockcrr $0 02 1 $0 57
Arhlete/Plygmund Equxpmcnt $0 05 $0 32 $0 61 $0 72 1 $0 74 $0 l l $031 , $032 $086 $0101 $004
Fm R e r l s P~K eINalI &IS $0 07 ' $025 $0111 $005 $008 $0091
Movable Panntom 1 $0 47 $0 20 $0 21 1 $0 32 52 82 1 $1 44
Slgnaee $016 SO07 $043 $0261 $027 $002 $018 $011 $025 $003 $004
Auto Door Ope2 I $0 IS 1
Ramadd MarherlShade~rrenl $0 25 1 I SO36 $064 1 $073 $015 I $003 $007
Fm Fjtmp.+ I $005 $006 1 $002 $ 0 0 2 $ 0 0 3 $009 $003 $006
N Brackc~IAppl~anccs, $004 $013 1 $0 07 $0 10
Comr G~!ardMwlcrlStoraec $0 02 $1 23 $000 $0 01 $002 $007
Stage Equnpmeni $0 09 $0 07 $006 $0161 $0M $012 $010
Audio V~sval Ikojcnxon Scmn, $0 06 $0 03 $0 01 I SOW $003 $002 $007 $000
CunamlBl~ndrIMau $0 17 $0 03 $0 05 $001 $030, $0071 $005 $004 $025
Chalk/l'ac~~arkcr~oardr $0 34 $0 54 $0 34 1 $0 57 I $0 61 $0 18 $0 46 $0 33 $0 29 SO 25 $0 29 $0 47
Furmm $040 $004
Food Servlcc 1 1 $0 10 $1 16 $009 $089 $013' S l 1 8 $ 1 1 3 $192 $2 08
Bevator 1 SO09 I - ~
Hearme Ventllattan Ar Condanontng SS 85 $10 68 Sll 39 $6 II $5 88 $3 56 $9 33 $14 58 $10 55 $7 36 I $11 39 $5 80
~ e ~ t & ~ a h - n ; e l $019 SO 12 1 SO 13 $1 07 $0 22 $022 $0 13 $0 13
Plvmbmg $3 91 $3 16 $4 11 $3 27 $3 12 $4 24 $3 12 $6 12 ! $5 63 8 $3 48 $4 85 $3 78
ELECnUCAL I 1
Elccmcal I8 32 $7 35 $8 84 $7 22 $6 47 54 76 $8 18 $8 39 $7 55 1 $6 57 $9 33 $9 91
~lrc~otectron $0 79 SO 84 $0 81 $0 69 $070 $1 02 $0 84 SI 36 ' $1 01 SI 07 son
Sccunry $0 02 $5 87 $0 ll $0 IS $0 13 $0 19 $0 02
WSound/lntercom 1 $1 40 $2 63 $2 63 I $225 $084 $0 10
CONTRACT TOTAL (ercl fecs) 1 $76 86 I $82 21 $90 74 $66 63 1 $66 67 1 $69 65 $73 74 $104 15 1 $78 03 I $77 72 $75 95 $93 24'
EXHIBIT I -Trade Costs/ New School Building SF 1995-96
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.