In the April 19 Harvard Press, the article “Ghosts of estimates past” analysed the elementary school renovation option estimates that were submitted to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) last June in the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR). The analysis determined that the three renovation estimates contained an identical level of renovation to the 1988 portion of the elementary school, and that the renovations included replacing most of that building with the same finishes, equipment, and furnishings as that of a new school. The article implied that the School Building Committee had those estimates in hand during the time it was conducting its survey as well as when it voted to select the new school as its preferred option. That was not the case.
The School Building Committee (SBC), in a statement this week to the Press, explained that in the weeks leading up to the vote, all the information given to the public regarding the scope and cost of the various options was based on the rough cost analyses provided by the architect and the project manager. This information was contained in the document “Proposed Design Alternative and Project Cost Comparisons” dated May 16, 2017. The rough cost analyses contained in the SBC’s document titled “Cost Comparison Matrix” provided a per-square-foot estimate for the various categories of construction. There were no details available at that time to describe anything but the broad scope of the renovation options, but the SBC’s statement said, “each of the options included extensive renovations to the 1988 building.” Both of the referenced documents are available on the SBC website.
The MSBA’s feasibility study process dictates that building committees choose only one option to move forward for schematic design. The committee voted for its choice based on the rough estimates it had as well as other noncost considerations. It considered two of the original four options: option 2, a renovated school with a new K-wing and cafeteria, estimated at a total project cost of $43.6 million, about 85 percent of the $51 million total project cost estimate for option 4, a new school. The committee voted for the new school. The estimates discussed in the “Ghosts” article were created a few weeks after that vote.
How estimates were derived
At an April 24 selectmen’s meeting, Selectwoman and School Building Committee member Alice von Loesecke told the board that estimator PM&C created the renovation estimates discussed in the Press article by using the elements and cost from the estimate for the new school and adjusting the cost for square footage as needed. She also told the selectmen that it is standard practice for cost estimators on MSBA projects to take the one schematic plan that is available and use elements of it to estimate the options not chosen. In this case, the only plan that was available was the plan for the new building. Von Loesecke confirmed via email last week that the project manager explained the methodology used to create the PM&C estimates to the building committee after the Press article was published.
As reported in the “Ghosts” article, if the PM&C estimates had been for an actual renovation, nearly everything inside the 1988 building would have been replaced with the same elements as the new school. The total project cost of option 2 cited in the PSR using the construction costs from the PM&C estimates was $41.1 million, again about 85 percent of the $48.6 million total project cost from that same source for option 4, a new school.
