Page 3 of 4. ATTACHMENT ONE. Applicable Statutes, SFC Rules & Regulations, and A/E Design Agreement. W.S. 21-15-114
The Use of Prototype Designs Background At the August 23, 2013 Select Committee on School Facilities (“Select Committee”) meeting, it was suggested that the School Facilities Commission (“Commission”) consider incentive programs for school districts to use prototype designs for school buildings. This suggestion was discussed with the Commission on September 18, 2013. Based upon these discussions and a subsequent review of the current statutory requirements, it was determined that current statutes provide direction regarding prototype designs and that the Commission has rules in place regarding prototype designs (see attachment one). This information was provided to the Select Committee. At the January 22, 2014 Commission meeting, prototype designs were discussed again. The Commission considered making prototype designs more accessible to school districts. Commission Chairman, Bryan Monteith, requested that the School Facilities Department provide further information to the Commission and Select Committee on what school districts have done with prototype designs to date. The purpose of this briefing paper is to provide additional information on prototype designs for school buildings. Consideration of Prototype Designs Prototype designs are meant to be repeated at several sites. A prototype school design must meet building codes, design guidelines, the overall requirements of typical educational programs and be able to adapt to different sites without substantial modifications. The cost savings that can result from using prototype designs typically come from taking advantage of previous work performed by design professionals; components of a design that may be re-used to minimize architectural fees; a reduction in change orders typically found in projects; possible benefits to project schedules; and more flexible timelines to allow bid timing that supports favorable construction costs. Evaluating Prototype Designs While the State of Wyoming has been using prototype designs for several years (see attachment two), our experience has been inconsistent. We have discovered that using prototype designs does not guarantee cost savings. Many factors contribute to the cost of design and construction. When a district chooses a prototype without using a competitive process, we need to verify the selected contractor’s effort will coincide with the prototype design. Access to site utilities, offsite infrastructure, and location of the new building can have significant impacts on cost. We have discovered that using prototype designs does not always shorten the design schedule. Examples include such things as construction funds not being available to coincide with early completion of the design; the school district may not have the capacity to enhance their involvement to match the quick design development; and complications arise when selecting a site for locating the prototype.
Finally, we have discovered that using prototype designs can create additional design tasks. For example, changes to the prototype design identified by the school district may require little variation from the preceding design, while other school district changes may require more design modifications. Changes due to new school district leadership, educational delivery methods, site adaptations, community involvement, etc. would also affect the extent of changes needed to the prototype design. Design guidelines and adequacy standards are updated periodically, and prototype designs must be adapted to meet these guidelines and standards if changes have occurred since the last use of the prototype design. How the State of Wyoming Supports Prototype Designs Since 2005, eight prototype designs have been used for twenty-two school building projects throughout the state. The School Facilities Department provides prototype designs to school districts, architects and contractors through its information management systems, school facility planning processes (see below) and project development meetings. Wyoming school districts participate in an extensive annual facility planning process. Facility planning details the way each district intends to implement improvements to educational, administration, and transportation buildings. Facility plans are reviewed and approved by the State of Wyoming. Facility plans provide another opportunity to collaboratively explore prototype designs for new buildings. The State of Wyoming has encouraged architects to review and consider prototypes from other states. A “Design for Prototypes” request for proposals (RFP) is used for this purpose. This RFP solicits previous designs, developed by the architect for other clients, which meet the school district’s educational objectives, capacity, allowable square footage, and site criteria. An alternate project schedule and fee proposal is also evaluated to compare each design and associated cost savings. Furthering the Use of Prototype Designs The State of Wyoming is currently reviewing each project where a prototype design was used to build a school. The evaluation and subsequent report will assist us in determining replicable value in building components, engineering, site development and costs. The report will be made available to the Commission and Select Committee when it is complete. Over the next several years we will be strengthening the promotion of prototype designs in our planning process. Earlier consideration of prototype designs when a district is considering a building replacement project will be employed to a greater degree. The availability of prototype designs on-line and training in their access and use will also be deployed. Finally, we will be examining how economic incentives could be used to encourage the use of prototype designs in building schools. These include, but are not limited to policies that link financial incentives, both negative and positive, to the use of prototype designs. The key will be to integrate these incentives into our current system without creating unintended consequences in other parts of the program.
ATTACHMENT ONE Applicable Statutes, SFC Rules & Regulations, and A/E Design Agreement W.S. 21-15-114 (a) The school facilities commission shall: (xi) Establish a process under which prototypes are developed for remedies addressing building and facility needs identified under this act through building and facility replacement. Prototypes shall be assembled based upon: (A) Capacity requirements of the building or facility and projected student populations to be attending programs in the building or facility; (B) Educational programs to be provided within the building or facility, provided that this subparagraph shall not be construed to grant the commission any authority to specify the educational programs offered by any district; (C) Accommodations, in coordination and cooperation with the district, to the proposed site on which the building or facility is to be constructed, including specific site requirements and limitations. SFC Rules and Regulations Chapter 3, Section 6 (q) Prototypes. The Commission shall develop prototypes for Commission-funded remedies, which may include specific components and/or features of a school building as well as complete structures. The Commission shall ensure that such prototypes shall be used in developed Commission-funded remedies. All prototypes developed by the Commission shall be adopted by rule. The SFC A/E Design Agreement The A/E design agreement does provide that the Owner can re-use design documents, effectively making past school designs available as a prototype for the same or other districts to use.
ATTACHMENT TWO Prototype Design 1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8
District Sheridan County School District No. 2 Sheridan County School District No. 2 Sheridan County School District No. 2 Park County School District No. 1 Johnson County School District No. 1 Sheridan County School District No. 1 Campbell County School District No. 1 Campbell County School District No. 1 Campbell County School District No. 1 Laramie County School District No. 1 Laramie County School District No. 1 Laramie County School District No. 1 Laramie County School District No. 1 Sweetwater County School District No. 1 Sweetwater County School District No. 1 Sweetwater County School District No. 1 Laramie County School District No. 1 Laramie County School District No. 1 Laramie County School District No. 2 Laramie County School District No. 2 Sublette County School Distirct No. 1 Fremont County School District No. 25
Project Name Woodland Park Meadowlark Elementary Coffeen Elementary Sunset Elementary Cloud Peak Elementary Tongue River Elementary Hillcrest Elementary Stocktrail Elementary Lakeview Elementary Sunrise Elementary Baggs Elementary Saddle Ridge Elementary Rossman Elementary Sage Elementary Pilot Butte Elementary New k-4 Elementary Goins Elementary Davis Elementary Burns Elementary Pine Bluffs Elementary Pinedale Elementary Willow Creek Elementary
Year Contracted 2008 2011 2013 2009 2011 2013 2007 2009 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2007 2009 2013 2011 2014 2007 2014 2008 2014
Architect TSP Architects TSP Architects TSP Architects Plan One Architects Plan One Architects Plan One Architects JGA Architects JGA Architects JGA Architects Pappas & Pappas Architects Pappas & Pappas Architects Pappas & Pappas Architects Pappas & Pappas Architects TSP Architects TSP Architects TSP Architects Pappas & Pappas Architects Pappas & Pappas Architects Tobin & Associates Tobin & Associates Sandstrom Architects Sandstrom Architects
Design Fee $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
478,758 603,825 656,000 750,000 446,755 680,335 899,000 561,000 561,000 643,250 853,035 478,100 442,500 850,000 828,015 973,640 797,226 1,526,196 891,037 553,533 1,185,000 1,088,079
Delivery Method C.M.A.R D.B.B D.B.B C.M.A.R D.B.B D.B.B C.M.A.R C.M.A.R C.M.A.R C.M.A.R C.M.A.R C.M.A.R C.M.A.R C.M.A.R D.B.B D.B.B D.B.B D.B.B D.B.B D.B.B. D.B. D.B.B.
