20 Questions About Project Management

At the February 10th Board of Education meeting, the Superintendent will be providing an update on the status of project management efforts for the Long-Term Facilities Plan. Reviewing the advance draft copy of the presentation available on BoardDocs, the Administration appears confident that project management is effective, that the projects are on schedule and on budget, and that community engagement efforts are adequate.

The Board of course has fiduciary responsibilities for the School District on behalf of the community: to provide needed facilities, to ensure stewardship of District funds, to supervise the effectiveness of the Superintendent concerning the conditions, efficiency, and needs of the District.

The project management presentation is a key opportunity for the Board to conduct their due diligence regarding the status of the facilities projects and their management. Accordingly, we'd like to suggest questions that may be relevant to that effort:

Ludlow outcomes

1. The Ludlow Pre-K was scheduled to be completed on August 1^st but did not open until September 15^th. Six months later, substantial portions of the project are incomplete. Are you satisfied with that schedule performance?

2. What’s left to do, and when will this remaining work be completed? Will neighborhood sidewalks damaged by construction be repaired, and new trees promised on the landscape plans but currently missing be planted?

3. Exterior walls have open voids in masonry, splashed tar streaks, and old light fixtures left abandoned. Almost two dozen windows that are less than one year old were being replaced this last weekend. Interior walls have holes that are covered up with foamboard panels. Are you satisfied with the construction quality? If not, how are the parties responsible being held accountable by District staff?

4. This board identified a $14,025,000 project construction budget in September 2023. Final project costs increased 13.2% to $15,872,185 on final December 2025 project bills, including $1,091,216 in change orders during construction. Are you satisfied with how the budget was managed?

5. The Cobalt Group was engaged during a nine-month period of the Ludlow schedule to assist in project management and community engagement. Did their work add value to the project? Why or why not?

   
   

   Woodbury and Beyond

6. The District is in the early stages of construction on the $70m Woodbury project, and is starting design on two elementary schools with a combined budget of $35m. Has the District augmented their project management capacity to handle this seven-fold increase in project activity? What changes has the District made to project management procedures to avoid issues that occurred at Ludlow?

7. The District is leaning on the OFCC to assist in project management. Do the OFCC staff assigned to Shaker’s projects have substantial experience with historic buildings and schools tightly embedded within residential neighborhoods?

8. Gilbane, as a Construction-Manager-at-Risk, has responsibility for certain financial risks of the project. At the same time, there are broader risks if the project delivery does not meet expectations: impacts on school schedules, student and teacher well-being, potential issues to long-term durability and maintenance costs if quality is deficient, not to mention credibility in the community and the success of future levies. How are other risks identified and managed by the Administration?

9. At your January board meeting, the board was informed of a 12-week delay in starting foundations. Were the foundations poured last week per that revised schedule? What specific ways are District staff managing the Construction Manager to ensure they recover time and avoid further delays?

10. At this early stage of Woodbury construction, a construction access route was created crossing sensitive tree root areas, and a large number of trees that were to be protected were erroneously removed. Both of these problems only came to the attention of the Administration and Board because of citizen involvement. How will the projects be managed more proactively by District staff to ensure the Construction Manager avoids continuing mistakes?

    
    

    Community Engagement

11. For Ludlow and Woodbury designs, substantial input came through the Facilities Advisory Committee as well as the City Planning and ABR procedures. Those inputs resulted in substantial changes to site and building designs. Do you believe those design changes were beneficial to the project results? Why or why not?

12. The FAC has been disbanded, and District has indicated they do not anticipate substantial ABR or Planning approvals will be required for the elementary schools. Do you believe these project results will be better without inputs from these groups?

13. For future project engagement, how much of this will be one-way information distribution vs. two-way engagement with stakeholders? What specific engagement strategies are being used to facilitate input that allows for meaningful changes in project designs and approaches where warranted?

14. How will engagement efforts reach under-represented populations and families with challenging schedules? Are you relying on the community to attend weekday evening meetings in order to provide input?

15. At a previous point in the Facilities Plan, the District had made a commitment to promptly reply to all community questions and post answers on the FAQ page. The District’s consultant at the time even indicated at the they would respond to every question within one day. Can the District re-commit to increased responsiveness and information sharing?

    
    

    Sustainability

16. Promises to integrate sustainability strategies were a key part of the 2023 capital levy campaign, including very specific commitments ranging from electric vehicle chargers to outdoor teaching and learning to integrated curricular opportunities for students. What has been the progress so far in achieving those commitments? Do you still believe those listed goals were appropriate fits for District needs?

17. Has Ludlow yet achieved LEED certification? If not, when will this occur?

18. What did you learn from efforts to integrate sustainability in Ludlow that can inform better results for future projects?

19. What are the District’s overall goals they hope to achieve for sustainability in the Facilities Plan? Is achieving LEED certification to “check the box” adequate? What specific strategies do you aim to incorporate related to student and teacher health and performance or the District’s financial sustainability?

20. What specific quantitative benchmarks have the Administration’s project management staff established in striving to achieve priority sustainable design outcomes? How is this performance being measured, tracked, and reported by the Administration as the projects progress?