Transcript Slide 1

Preparation of a Comprehensive Long-Range
Facility Improvement Plan
TSBA School Facilities Workshop
April 30, 2012
Joe A. Edgens, Executive Director of Facility Services (Retired)
Metropolitan Nashville / Davidson County, TN Public Schools
Contact: [email protected] or (615) 259-8516
Session Content
 Why a Facility Master Plan
 Procedure
 RFP
 Work Plan
Deliverables
 Standards
 Assessments
 Ranking
 Projections
 Capacities
 Priorities
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
PAGE NUMBER
Purpose
Background
Project Description
Scope of Services
Contractor’s Responsibilities
Metro’s Responsibilities
Instructions for Submission
7.01
Proposal Deadline
7.02
Pre-Proposal Conference
7.03
Questions
7.04
Proposal Opening
7.05
Proprietary Information
7.06
Procurement Timetable
7.07
Disclaimers
7.08
Proposals and Presentation Costs
7.09
Proposal Format
Ambiguity, Conflict, or Other Errors in RFP
Proposal Term
Late Submissions
Implied Requirements
Rejection of Proposal
Acceptance of Proposals
Evaluation Criteria
Contract Formation
Terms and Conditions
Insurance Requirements
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
3
3
3
3
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
EXHIBITS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Offeror Data Form
Contract for Purchase of Services
Affidavits
Insurance Requirements
Educational Analysis
12
13
25
26
31
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
COMPREHENSIVE FACILITY MASTER PLAN
1.0 PURPOSE
The Metropolitan Board of Public Education (MBPE) of Nashville and Davidson County is seeking proposals to provide comprehensive facility master planning for the
school system.
The plan will address the immediate space needs, future space needs, building
capacities, building conditions, the use of portable buildings, retention or disposal of each
facility/property, consolidation of properties, and land acquisition, as required to provide a
full, detailed, priority ranked, long-range facility master plan
2.0 BACKGROUND
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools is a school system with a K-12 student population of approximately 70,000 students. The students are educated at 129 school
locations that total over 11,000,000 square feet, in approximately 180 buildings, including support buildings and excluding portable classroom buildings.
The following exhibit shows the number and type of schools and support facilities locations by age in the Metro Nashville Public School system, by original construction date.*
School Type
Elementary Schools
Under 5 Yrs.
5-10 Yrs.
18
1
10-20 Yrs.
Over 20 Yrs.
Total
9
37
65
Middle Schools
6
1
29
36
High Schools
1
2
8
11
8
9
Special Education Schools
4
4
Alternative Schools
3
3
Adult Education Schools
1
1
Support Facilities
8
8
90
129
Magnet Schools
TOTAL
1
25
2
12
*School or support locations may have more than one building.
A physical facilities survey and evaluation was completed in January, 1999, by an outside consulting firm. This review identified approximately $137,000,000 in
deferred maintenance in the school system. A second survey, on roofing, was completed in February, 1999. Approximately $11,000,000 in roof replacement/repair
was identified. The Mayor and Metro Council approved $25,000,000 in 2000 and $16,830,000 in 2001 to address these needs.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The MBPE, and all other Metropolitan Government departments, are annually required to produce a six-year capital improvements plan and budget. The end product of
this Request for Proposals is a report containing information to be used by the MBPE regarding facility investments and improvements that will be prioritized and included
in the annual capital budget document. The Comprehensive Facility Master Plan should list: each existing facility, with the estimated cost of all repairs or construction
required at that facility, including school playgrounds; the scope and estimated cost of all proposed new construction to meet population projections; the scope and
estimated cost of all proposed new construction to meet program needs such as new magnet or specialty schools; the estimated cost and general location of all land to
be purchased to meet system needs. It will also be necessary to work with the MBPE staff and the Metropolitan Planning Commission to establish a definition and
formula for determining building capacity. The selected contractor shall develop objective standards and criteria for evaluating and ranking facility needs.
4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
• Review the Physical Facilities Survey and Evaluation, the roofing survey, 2001 Performance Audit of the Public Schools, facilities planning policies, existing educational
specifications, and all existing data surrounding school facility and playground use and physical condition. This should include for each school an analysis of current
enrollment, portable buildings in use, and identified space and functionality deficiencies, as well as health, safety, ADA, and other regulatory issues.
• Develop objective standards and criteria for ranking building needs (a successful system used by another school district is attached as Exhibit E). This exhibit utilized
evaluations of building physical conditions as well as the functional adequacy of existing spaces. An educational and a technical rating was then developed and then
composited to obtain an overall building ranking. It should be noted that this particular ranking system is not required. Rather, it serves as an example of the type of system
that will be required.
• Develop preliminary cost estimates and a prioritized implementation strategy for a master facilities plan that considers all of the above factors, plus other factors identified
during the project, for each school. This plan should consider projected population trends over the next 10 years, programs, ADA, life/safety and environmental issues. To
avoid duplication, review and incorporate, where appropriate, data already developed through another third party contractor (ADA and facility condition surveys with cost
estimates, roofing surveys with cost estimates, etc.).
• Assess current facilities planning in place, criteria and processes for selecting school building sites, and procedures surrounding the disposition of school buildings
replaced or closed. This should include all aspects of a school campus, including playgrounds and sports facilities.
• Work with the MBPE and Planning Commission to establish a definition and formula for calculating capacity of school by type. Should the definition include a student
classroom ratio? Determine what kind of classrooms should be included in this ratio. Determine when schools are over their capacity. Determine how gyms, art, music,
laboratories, etc. count toward building capacity. Review current standards for cafeteria, multi-purpose and library size. Address how educational technologies and
community use impact school building functionality.
• After capacity is defined, determine the capacity of each existing school building.
• Work with the Planning Commission and Metropolitan Board of Education to review and verify student enrollment projections by grade level and by school for 10 years in
the future.
• Based on the enrollment projections, determine if there is capacity to meet needs or if new school buildings required?
• Determine the historical preservation issues that would need to be addressed to bring older schools up to date on functionality and standards.
• Conduct presentations to the public and government officials as needed when a master facilities plan is proposed.
• Perform additional tasks as mutually agreed upon during the project.
Work Plan Overview for a Successful Master
Planning Process
Task 1 - Project initiation and data gathering
Task 2 - Review current mission statement, goals and objectives.
Review current and projected programs and services
Task 3 - Develop standards for ranking building condition &
suitability
Task 4 - Conduct facility assessments
Task 5 – Calculate condition/suitability score for each facility
Task 6 - Review and verify demographic data
Task 7 - Develop consistent formula(s) for calculating capacity
Task 8 - Prepare final comprehensive long range facility
improvement plan
Methodology Components
1)
Standards / Facility Assessments / Building Rankings
Building Condition Assessment Full Report
% of
Systems
Possible
Percent
Component(s)
System
Rating
Score
Score
Score
Foundation\Structure
Single Component
100.00
Good
11.49
12.77
90.00
Exterior Walls
Single Component
100.00
Good
4.71
5.24
90.00
Roof
Single Component
100.00
Good
4.65
5.16
90.00
Exterior Windows
Single Component
100.00
Good
2.12
2.35
90.00
Exterior Doors
Single Component
100.00
Good
0.51
0.56
90.00
Interior Floors
Single Component
100.00
Good
6.69
7.43
90.00
Interior Walls
Single Component
100.00
Good
7.82
8.68
90.00
Interior Doors
Single Component
100.00
Good
1.00
1.11
90.00
Ceiling
Single Component
100.00
Good
4.82
5.35
90.00
Fixed Equipment
Single Component
100.00
Good
2.13
2.37
90.00
Main Service
Single Component
100.00
Good
2.90
3.22
90.00
Distribution
Single Component
100.00
Good
2.90
3.22
90.00
Structural
Mechanical
Electrical
Grounds Assessment
% of
Systems
Possible
Percent
Component(s)
System
Rating
Score
Score
Score
Parking Lots
Single Component
100.00
Good
7.77
8.64
90.00
Driveways
Single Component
100.00
Good
8.95
9.95
90.00
Sidewalks
Single Component
100.00
Good
19.51
21.67
90.00
Play Courts
Single Component
100.00
Good
7.63
8.48
90.00
Lawns\Gardens
Single Component
100.00
Good
5.75
6.39
90.00
Playfields
Single Component
100.00
Good
3.96
4.40
90.00
Irrigation System
Single Component
100.00
Good
3.77
4.19
90.00
Equipment
Single Component
100.00
Good
8.10
9.00
90.00
Playground Surfaces
Single Component
100.00
Good
2.71
3.02
90.00
Single Component
100.00
Good
4.24
4.71
90.00
ES Site Condition Assessment
Paved Surfaces
Landscaped Surfaces
Playgrounds
Utilities
Water Service
Suitability Report - Full
Suitability
Possible
Percent
Rating
Score
Score
Score
Fair
1.99
2.97
67.00
Parking
Good
0.81
0.81
100.00
Playground
Good
2.34
2.34
100.00
Fencing
Good
0.75
0.75
100.00
Signage
Good
0.09
0.09
100.00
Size
Good
16.80
16.80
100.00
Adjacencies
Good
3.60
3.60
100.00
Storage\Fixed Equip.
Good
3.60
3.60
100.00
Good
3.50
3.50
100.00
Adjacencies
G/F
0.75
0.75
100.00
Storage\Fixed Equip.
G/F
0.75
0.75
100.00
Suitability - Elementary
Traffic
General Classrooms
Remedial Learning Spaces
Size
Methodology Components
2)
Projections and Capacity
Enrollment Projections
 Gather historical data
 Review existing projections
 Interviews
 Planning Officials (Census Data)
 Economic Development Agencies
 District Officials
 Calculations
 Cohort Survival Model
 Linear Regression Models
 Student per Household Models
Enrollment Projections
Summary of Projection Models K-12
Enrollment
7,000
6,500
6,000
5,500
5,000
04 - 05 05 - 06 06 - 07 07 - 08 08 - 09 09 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14
Year
Annual % Increase
Regression
Students/Household
MGT Estimate
Cohort Survival
Capacity Standards
 Factors Affecting Capacity
 Class size limitations
 Student-teacher ratios






Educational programs
Safety
How teacher prep is handled
Scheduling efficiency
Accreditation
Others…
Budget Capacity Model
Full Size Teaching
Spaces
Kindergarten
1st Grade
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
Resource
Music
Art
Reading Room
Community Room
Total
efficiency factor
Cafeteria
Library/Media
Administration
Physical Education
Itinerant
Teaching
Spaces
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
25
0.95
1600
4090
1780
4620
400
400 Student Model
Student
Teacher Ratio
20
20
20
20
25
-
Capacity
80
80
80
80
100
420
399
Full Size Teaching Teaching
Spaces
Spaces
Kindergarten
5
1st Grade
5
2nd Grade
5
rd
3 Grade
5
4th Grade
4
Resource
1
Music
1
Art
1
Reading Room
1
Community Room
1
Total
29
efficiency factor
0.95
Cafeteria
2000
Library/Media
4090
Administration
1780
Physical Education
4620
Itinerant
400
Full Size Teaching Teaching
Spaces
Spaces
Kindergarten
7
st
1 Grade
7
2nd Grade
7
rd
3 Grade
7
4th Grade
6
Resource
2
Music
2
Art
2
Reading Room
1
Community Room
1
Total
42
efficiency factor
0.95
Cafeteria
2800
Library/Media
4090
Administration
1830
Physical Education
4620
Itinerant
400
500 Student Model
Student
Capacity
Teacher Ratio
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
25
100
500
475
700 Student Model
Student
Capacity
Teacher Ratio
20
140
20
140
20
140
20
140
25
150
710
675
Full Size Teaching Teaching
Spaces
Spaces
Kindergarten
6
1st Grade
6
2nd Grade
6
rd
3 Grade
6
4th Grade
5
Resource
1
Music
2
Art
2
Reading Room
1
Community Room
1
Total
36
efficiency factor
0.95
Cafeteria
2400
Library/Media
4090
Administration
1780
Physical Education
4620
Itinerant
400
Full Size Teaching Teaching
Spaces
Spaces
Kindergarten
8
st
1 Grade
8
2nd Grade
8
rd
3 Grade
8
4th Grade
7
Resource
2
Music
2
Art
2
Reading Room
1
Community Room
1
Total
47
efficiency factor
.95
Cafeteria
3200
Library/Media
4090
Administration
1830
4620
Physical Education
Itinerant
400
600 Student Model
Student
Capacity
Teacher Ratio
20
120
20
120
20
120
20
120
25
125
605
575
800 Student Model
Student
Capacity
Teacher Ratio
20
160
20
160
20
160
20
160
25
175
815
774
Projected Utilization
Middle School Example
Sample of Projected Enrollments with
Recommendations
Elementary Schools K-5
(not including portables)
Add K-8 schools these years
(one replaces Arnold).
17,000
16,000
15,000
14,000
School Year
Enrollment
Capacity
12-13
11-12
10-11
09-10
08-09
07-08
06-07
05-06
04-05
13,000
03-04
Enrollment
18,000
Add one K-5 school
each year and do five
additions.
Add one K-5 school
this year.
Methodology Components
3)
Determining Parameters and Priorities
Priorities
 Efficiently utilize all current district resources
 Utilize as much as possible the data provided by the long range
facilities committee in the prioritization of needs
 Maximize the life cycle of all facilities
 Minimize overcrowding throughout all district schools
Priorities
 Minimize the use of portables as classrooms to the degree
possible
 Address current facility condition deficiencies including physical
condition, site condition and educational suitability condition
 Insure all appropriate learning spaces exist at each school
 Provide equity among district facilities to the degree possible
Priorities
 Celebrate the historical significance of District facilities where
appropriate
 Address the differences among school size (capacity)
Methodology Components
4)
Cost / Benefit Analysis
Cost / Benefit Elements
 Building capacity
 Site size
 Utilization
 Includes student teacher ratios
 Building condition




Physical Condition
Suitability
Technology Readiness
Site Condition
 Weighing factors
Sample School Profile
METROPOLITAN BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY
FACILITY CONDITION MATRIX
SCHOOL NAME: Antioch High School
SIP GRADE CONFIGURATION: 9-12
ACREAGE
CONDITION
SCORE
SUITABILITY
SCORE
YEAR OF ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION:
CURRENT TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE:
YEAR OF MOST RECENT RENOVATION:
MOST RECENT RENOVATION SQUARE FOOTAGE:
COMBINED
SCORE
ENROLLMENT
Current
52.74
94.84%
96.00%
95.13%
2245
Projected
CAPACITY
1997
287,393
N/A
N/A
UTILIZATION
A
B
Current
1691
2057
109.14%
HISTORICAL
SIGNIFICANCE
Projected
None Identified
Condition $1,334,653.09
Suitability $264,401.56
Sub-total $1,599,054.65
Additions $
Comments:
Total Number of Portables: 10
Number used for Classrooms: 9
A - Square Footage Per Student Model
B - Instructional Space Model - Based on 25 Students Per Class, High School; 25
Students Per Class, Middle School; 20.8 Students Per Class, Elementary
Master Plan Recommendations
METROPOLITAN BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY
MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRIORITIES
CLUSTER NAME: Antioch High School Cluster
SCHOOL NAME
ACREAGE
YEAR OF ORIGINAL CONST.
CONDITION
SCORE
SUITABILITY SCORE
COMBINED SCORE
ENROLLMENT
Current
Projected*
CAPACITY
Instructional
Space Model
UTILIZATION
Current
HISTORICAL
SIGNIFICANCE
Projected
Replace
Cole Elementary
12.03
1962
84.84%
57.04%
77.89%
700
573
122.16%
None Identified
Lakeview Elementary
11.46
1967
86.93%
66.41%
81.80%
688
692
99.42%
None Identified
Maxwell Elementary
15.88
2001
99.90%
100.00%
99.93%
639
514
124.32%
None Identified
Moss Elementary
11.40
1988
79.61%
87.78%
81.65%
592
692
85.55%
None Identified
Mountain View Elementary
16.23
1999
100.00%
99.44%
99.86%
941
790
119.11%
None Identified
Una Elementary
11.72
1987
84.14%
87.22%
84.91%
721
534
135.02%
Worthy of
Consideration
3795
112.81%
ELEMENTARY TOTAL:
4281
4299
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRIORITIES
Abandon
Renovate
$
$
$
Addition
Boundary
Change
2
1,363,960
3
1,404,872
-
Districtwide
Projects**
B
$
3
1,549,669
-
635,000
B
$
3
$
773,066
$
Priority 1 recommendation is for new elementary with a capacity of 500, budget
of $6,025,000
635,000
B
635,000
113.28%
Antioch Middle
30.41
1949
80.63%
100.00%
85.47%
995
809
122.99%
None Identified
Apollo Middle
21.77
1967
77.99%
83.50%
79.37%
817
585
139.66%
None Identified
Kennedy Middle
29.30
2001
99.43%
100.00%
99.57%
1147
932
123.07%
None Identified
$
$
3
2,181,151
1
2,919,598
-
C
$
$
$
221,000
A
573,520
C
221,000
Additions needed at Apollo Middle School and Antioch Middle School or new
Middle School necessary - Priority 1 Budget of $9,960,000
MIDDLE SCHOOL TOTAL:
2959
2768
2326
127.21%
2057
109.14%
2057
109.14%
119.00%
D
Antioch High
HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL:
52.74
1997
94.84%
96.00%
95.13%
2245
2245
2864
None Identified
-
$
250,000
139.23%
Add High School in conjunction with McGavock. Technology High School with capacity of 1,000 Priority 1 Budget of $17,750,000. New Comprehensive High School in Southeast Quadrant -