What happened with the MSBA and where do we stand with regards to reimbursement from the state?

In a letter dated June 26th, 2012, the MSBA determined that the Project Scope, Schedule, and Total Project Budget deviated from the terms of the Project Funding Agreement (PFA) between the District and the MSBA signed on February 3rd, 2012. During the early iterations of the design development phase, cost estimates for certain design features that were considered in addition to elements in the Schematic Design, pushed budget estimates out of line.  The MSBA became concerned that in this process, the scope of project had deviated from the Project Funding Agreement (PFA).  On June 26th, we received a letter from the MSBA suspending our reimbursement.  Grant payments from the MSBA were suspended until the District brought the project back into compliance with the PFA and until we demonstrated that our project was indeed inline in scope, schedule and budget with the PFA. We continued with the value engineering process and made design choices that accomplished our needs and closed the budget gap.  

As requested by the MSBA, on July 26th we provided detailed responses to their requests for information and had several meetings with them to discuss and work through the concerns. Simultaneously the project team continued to refine the design.  We submitted the completed DD package to the MSBA on August 15th.  

After considerable review, on October 24th, the MSBA announced that our DD submission was indeed in compliance with the PFA and that our funding would be restored pending the completion of action items, primarily providing additional information, and signing the amendment to the PFA that revises the space summaries.

What changed?  I heard this is not the building I voted for at Town Meeting.

In this project, as with all construction projects, changes occur as part of the design process. At Town Meeting, we voted on a Schematic Design (SD). Schematic Design is a high level version of the building.  Project cost in SD is determined by square footage.  In the Design Development phase the building systems and materials are selected.  The design is optimized, efficiencies are created and project cost estimates are conducted based on the materials and systems. Working through this process is called value engineering (VE) and a more thorough discussion of VE is included in this document.  Many specific elements in the building, including technology and building materials are addressed later in this document.  

SD (Town Meeting)                                                DD (Now)

238,326 gross square feet                                     236,495 gross square feet

225,826 gross sq. ft. main building                        225,826 gross sq ft. main building

$92.6 M Total Project Cost                                    $92.6 M Total Project Cost

$82.5 M Building Cost (as depicted)                     $74.9 M Building Cost

$  7.5 M Targeted VE List

It is a fact that the conceptual rendering slides of the building that were a portion of the Town Vote presentation were derived from the Schematic Drawings, valued at $82.5M.  In retrospect, some of these concept slides did depict items that were contained on the Value Engineering list of $7.5M like the three cupolas structures for example.  The cupolas were replaced with skylights, which serve the same purpose in a more energy efficient way.

In the letter dated October 25th, the MSBA and DESE’s acceptance of the Developed Design demonstrates that the current design is materially the same as originally proposed, and that the project is in compliance with the project scope, budget, and schedule as agreed to in the PFA.

I have heard that we could save $20 million by opting for a model school design. Why didn’t we build a model school?

When comparing prices between two projects, it is very important to ensure that the two amounts are compared on an apples-to-apples basis, taking into account the escalation factors for projects completed at different times.

A recent study of 10 current or recently completed model schools show an average for all 10 model schools that had a cost-per-gross square foot average that was 2.8% less than the Concord-Carlisle budget. This difference in savings for a $74.9M project cannot produce a cost savings anywhere near $20M.

A number of factors, play into the decision to apply for eligibility in the MSBA model school program. These include:

A site with the ability to accept a model school footprint that may vary in size between 89,000 to 157,000 square feet with little or no cost premium.

Site geotechnical characteristics that are suitable for building a shallow foundation system with little or no cost premium to accommodate a model school building.

An early Planning process that concludes with an application for acceptance in the Model School program.  In our case, the Concord Carlisle Regional High School project does not have a site conducive to a Model School footprint and the results of guidance, at the time, from State officials and the results of nearly a decade of planning did not support the decision to apply for eligibility.  For additional information on model schools and our site, please refer to the presentation Model School Analysis

Why do other towns have higher MSBA reimbursement rates?

The reimbursement rate for a school project begins with a base rate and then additional reimbursement points can be added based on other project factors.   The base rate is determined by the MSBA and encompasses many socioeconomic factors.  The rate is built on a sliding scale based on the wealth of the towns that comprise the school district.  The wealthier the towns that represent the school district, the lower the reimbursement.  If you examine reimbursement rates for school projects across the state, this is clearly evident (Lowell, Springfield, and Natick have higher rates of reimbursement).  Given that the Concord-Carlisle community is one of the wealthiest communities in the state, we received the lowest base rate (31%).

Our project has been designed to maximize the rate boosters.  We garnered 2 additional points for building a green school, 1.5 additional points for having a maintenance plan, 1 additional point for using a construction manager-at-risk for a total reimbursement rate of 35.5%.

Why do we have the highest cost/sq ft project in the state?

This is not an accurate statement.   When comparing our cost/sq ft. to other projects, it is important to note several factors.  First, the comparison needs to be against all new schools, versus renovate/new or just a renovation.  Second, older projects are not a good comparison because of construction cost inflation.  The Duxbury middle/high school project, which recently broke ground, is a fair comparison.  

Per KVA, the Owners Project Manager for Duxbury (and Concord-Carlisle,) the Duxbury project, a model school, is $313/sq.ft. versus our project which has an estimate of $316/sq.ft. For additional comparison, Wayland’s recently completed project was $288/sq.ft. and Wellesley’s was $381/sq.ft.  

Please also refer to a table showing cost data for recent projects.

How was the landfill detected on the school campus and why was it not discovered before the town meeting vote?

Throughout the entire process, the building committee has adhered to the MSBA established protocol for conducting soil testing from the very beginning of the project.  During the Schematic Design phase of the project, and prior to the Town Meeting votes, soil testing was mainly focused on where the school would be located to avoid building on unsuitable or unsafe soils.  Once the towns voted to move the project forward, we began the Design Development phase.  During this phase the Comprehensive Site Assessment (known as Phase II) was conducted.  Borings were taken throughout the school campus and contaminants were discovered around the current student parking lot.  It was during this phase of the testing that the boundaries of the landfill were located, the contaminants were identified and the depth of the contamination in the soil was determined.  The Phase II testing must be submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) by February 6, 2013.  In Phase III, alternatives for remediation will be evaluated.  Phase IV is where the DEP will dictate the course of action for remediation and an implementation plan will be created.  The Phase III and Phase IV reports are due to the DEP by February 6, 2016.

It is important to note that the soils around the new school location are clean and there are no issues with the building site.

If we used a model school design, could the landfill issue and cost been avoided?

No.  Unfortunately, the school campus, purchased in the 1950’s, contained a landfill. Irrespective of the type of project pursued, once discovered, it must be remediated.

When will remediation for the landfill begin?

The DEP dictates how the site will be remediated.  However, if the DEP determines that we can pursue a capping option and the landfill does not pose an environmental threat that needs to be dealt with immediately, remediation work is expected to begin after the high school project is completed in 2016.  The parking lot needs to be operational during school construction because there is nowhere else to park cars for teachers, students, and visitors.  

Once the new school parking lot has been completed, remediation work can begin.  Phase V, the final phase of remediation that reports the site presents no significant risk, is due February 6, 2018, 6 years from the identification of the site.

Why weren’t we told about impact the project would have on the bus depot?

From the time the site for the new building was selected, the Building Committee has discussed this in its forums and public meetings.  Local media including the Concord Journal, The Carlisle Mosquito and the Concord Patch also had articles.  The question was raised from the floor of Special Town Meeting in Concord.  The bus drivers created a one-page handout (distributed at Town Meeting) describing the impact from their perspective. 

While Building Committee is not responsible for determining how transportation will be delivered, we have been upfront that the buildings that constitute the bus depot would be impacted.  Upon citizen request, we studied the feasibility of maintaining the depot in situ and found that doing so would be cost prohibitive.  The study presentation can be found on this website.

Has value engineering has resulted in a building that is different from what I voted for at Special Town Meeting?

Value Engineering is an important part of every building project.  It is where the building is optimized and made efficient relative to the budget.  Every building project goes through a value engineering process.  

When the initial estimates for the architect’s design development drawings were published, KVA, our owners project manager, and Turner, our construction manager, developed a matrix that compared different project cost construction categories (i.e. site work, exterior envelope, interior finishes) using their extensive database of school building projects to our project.  Each building project cost category was compared against this matrix to generate cost savings ideas and bring each cost category in line with other building projects.  The value engineering process we employed was well thought out and preserved the most critical building design elements.

For a school our size, the MSBA guidelines allow for seating of 750.  Our auditorium has only 600 seats.  Was this part of the VE process?



The seating size of the auditorium was 600 seats in the Schematic Design and that has not changed.  It is true that for a school our size, we could have up to 750 seats per the MSBA guideline.  During the feasibility study, our original auditorium was 750 seats versus the 600 seat auditorium in the existing building.  However, in user group meetings with the drama and music departments, it was requested that the size of the auditorium not be changed from the 600 seat size because a smaller auditorium is better for performances.  It was requested that the space that was freed up from a smaller auditorium be used for a dedicated drama room. That educational request was granted and it is reflected in the current plan.

The auditorium is being configured to a “square,” greatly compromising acoustics and sightlines



Per Acentech Consultants, “there is nothing inherently ‘bad’, acoustically, about a rectangular shape for a performance space -- actually quite the opposite is true -- think of Boston's Symphony Hall, for example.”



It also true that the fan-shaped floor plans that were so popular in high schools of the 50s, 60s and 70s, with their splayed-out side walls, actually concentrated critical sound energy toward the rear corners of the seating areas, thereby depriving much of the audience of beneficial lateral sound reflections. The current CCHS plan and section have well-placed bowed sound diffusing shapes on both the sidewalls and the ceiling. This will help to distribute sound more evenly across the seating areas. The bowed wall areas and "eyebrow" ceiling reflectors that flank the proscenium opening constitute an effective "sending end" to help project both musical and spoken word sound energy,” reports Acentech Consultants.



There are no obstructions or other elements to interrupt sight lines in the CCHS auditorium design.

The lighting, electrical and sound systems needed in the auditorium have been dramatically reduced and/or eliminated

CCHS will have a superb theatrical system on opening day at the new high school.  

Reducing the rigging from 24 to 28 manual line sets will be more than adequate for this size stage; the 4 automated lines set will provide a total of 28 lines., 24-28 lines is a very common setup for an “excellent” high school stage.

There are 162 dimmers which is more than sufficient. Theater lighting consultant had noted that the reduction of dimmers on the stage budget will not be an issue for future capacity because less dimmers will be required in the future due to the advancement of LED technology. In the future, when/if CCHS wants to expand the lighting rig, stage lighting technology be with LED’s and the School would actually end up using FEWER dimmers than the current quantities in the budget for MORE lights.

Existing lighting will be re-used into the drama lab. The existing rig is in great shape and serves the purpose. This saved $40,500.

Orchestra pit will have manual platform fillers Original estimate included a hydraulic lift system for the orchestra pit, which was deemed excessive.

What’s wrong with the CCHS facility?

• CCHS does not meet current code.
• CCHS is in jeopardy of losing its accreditation because of structural, operational and educational space shortcomings.
• For 12 years, community leaders, school administrators, parents and faculty have overseen numerous, independent studies, seeking to solve the CCHS facility challenge.

We have known for over 12 years that the high school facility is in need of significant capital investment.

The infrastructure: the roof, building enclosure, windows, boilers, HVAC, electrical and gas distribution systems are all in need of repair or upgrade.  The sprawling building is inefficient, difficult to maintain and creates safety concerns.   Many areas, like the science labs, don't have the space or ventilation for routine science curriculum. We lack the necessary space for delivering Special Education Services, which results in expensive "out-of-district" placements. In fact, The New England Association of Schools and Colleges has issued CCHS a warning citation for these deficiencies and we are at risk for losing our accreditation.

These conditions, which have been documented over the past 12 years through study after study, negatively affect our ability to deliver essential curriculum. 

Why don’t we just fix what’s broken?

• This option was studied in 2009 and 2010 and was rejected by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), because of the level of deterioration.  We will not receive reimbursement from the state for funds used to renovate the existing structure.
• The independent cost estimate for renovation is $70 million.

The renovation option was explored extensively in the 2009 Master Plan and the 2010 Feasibility Study.  The sheer volume of work needed at CCHS, along with the nature of its design, makes it effectively impossible to “fix it” in a cost-effective manner.  We would not be able to keep the building open while this type of work was happening, which would require phasing the project over a longer time frame, renting upwards of 60 portable trailers, thus increasing cost, but more importantly, increasing safety hazards to students, faculty and to citizens who use the building for Continuing Education and Town Meeting, etc. The cost would be nearly $70 Million to bring the building up to code.  This spending would only address the “brick and mortar” and systems. It would not address the facility-related educational deficiencies.

What is the proposed plan for CCHS?

The tentative dates are:

Concord Town Meeting                        Monday, November 7^th

Carlisle Town Meeting                         Tuesday, November 8^th

Ballot (at polls)                                    Tuesday, November 15^th