Tab 3. BE HS Inspection Report.pdf
PDF 385 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- AFCEC-26-R-0006
About this file
This is a Facility Condition Assessment Report for Ben Eielson Junior/Senior High School located at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, assessed on January 9, 2018, under contract W91236-17-C-0012. The school serves 351 students in grades 7-12 across 103,401 gross square feet of facilities comprising one permanent building (built 1962), one semi-permanent structure (1980), and five relocatable units. The facility currently maintains a Condition Index of 89% with a Q-2 rating (fair condition), forecasted to decline to 76% with a Q-3 rating (poor condition) by FY2023.
The assessment identifies immediate maintenance and repair requirements totaling $7,903,667 in expired systems as of FY2018, including casework ($2,821,077), floor finishes ($3,775,513), computer cooling ($376,246), fire alarm system ($360,889), and LAN infrastructure ($545,173). Additional systems are forecast to require $9,820,405 in repairs by FY2023, including plumbing piping ($4,865,090), ceiling finishes ($1,959,550), wall finishes ($1,082,667), and various MEP components. The functional adequacy analysis reveals the school operates at 57% enrollment capacity (351 of 615 students); however, spatial deficiencies exist in family/consumer science and food service areas, with a combined corrective cost of $13,244,000 identified for inadequate spaces rated D or F against Department of Defense Education Activity standards. The facility is well-maintained overall and provides a fair learning environment despite aging building systems requiring substantial capital renewal investment.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska AI Data Center QA 6 Final.pdf | ||
| Clear SFS - Utility Drawings.pdf | ||
| Alaska AI Data Center QA 5 Final.pdf | ||
| S3.1.pdf | ||
| S1.1.pdf | ||
| PB1.pdf | ||
| M8.1.pdf | ||
| M5.2.pdf | ||
| M2.3.pdf | ||
| L4.pdf | ||
| M2.1.pdf | ||
| E3.1.pdf | ||
| E3.2.pdf | ||
| BEH 99 Asbuilts Architectural.pdf | ||
| BEH 99 As builts Mechanical.pdf | ||
| D2.1.pdf | ||
| A9.4.pdf | ||
| A9.3.pdf | ||
| A8.2.pdf | ||
| A6.2.pdf | ||
| A8.5.pdf | ||
| A5.3.pdf | ||
| A5.4.pdf | ||
| A5.2.pdf | ||
| A3.6.pdf | ||
| A3.5.pdf | ||
| A3.4.pdf | ||
| A2.3.pdf | ||
| A2.2A.pdf | ||
| A2.5.pdf | ||
| A2.4.pdf | ||
| S4.1.pdf | ||
| S4.2.pdf | ||
| S3.2.pdf | ||
| S1.2.pdf | ||
| S0.1.pdf | ||
| M5.1.pdf | ||
| M4.1.pdf | ||
| M3.1.pdf | ||
| E4.1.pdf | ||
| E5.1.pdf | ||
| E1.1.pdf | ||
| E2.2.pdf | ||
| C1.0.pdf | ||
| C3.0.pdf | ||
| A8.7.pdf | ||
| A8.3.pdf | ||
| A7.1.pdf | ||
| Updated Alaska AI Data Center RFLP 04 15 26.pdf | ||
| RFLP Revised Alaska AI Data Center 04 15 26.pdf |
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
03/05/18 Eielson Air Force Base
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1
BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Facility Condition Assessment Report
SCHOOL SUMMARY
Date of Assessment 09-January-2018 Year Built1 1962 - 1980
GSF 103,401
Current Condition Condition Index 89% Q-Rating Q-2
Forecast Condition (FY2023) Condition Index 76% Q-Rating Q-3
1 Indicates range of dates construction was present on campus
CONSTRUCTION TYPE SUMMARY
(Building Count)
Perm Semi Temp Relo 1 1 0 5
FUNCTIONAL ADEQUACY SUMMARY
Enrollment 351 LEA Reported Capacity 616 Calculated Capacity 615
I. INTRODUCTION
| Ben | Eielson | Junior/Senior | High | School | is | located | at | Eielson | Air | Force | Base, | Alaska. | This |
| school | services | 351 | students | in | grades | Seventh | through | Twelfth. | |||||
| This | report | provides | a | summary | of | findings | for | the | physical | condition | and | functional | |
| adequacy | assessment | of | buildings | at | this | school. | |||||||
| The | physical | condition | assessment | includes | a | general | description | of | typical | building | |||
| systems | found | on | campus | and | includes | current | (FY2018) | conditions | and | forecast | (FY2023) | ||
| conditions. | When | multiple | types | of | a | system | are | present, | the | predominant | system | is | shown. |
| Following | Office | of | the | Secretary | of | Defense | (OSD) | Facility | Sustainment | Model | guidelines, | ||
| and | consistent | with | Department | of | Defense | Education | Activity | (DoDEA) | practice, | this | |||
| assessment | uses | Condition | Index | (CI) | and | Quality | Ratings | (Q-Ratings) | as | a | standard | of | |
| measure | to | assess | the | condition | of | all | public | schools | located | on | Department | of | Defense |
| installations. | The | CI | and | associated | Q-Ratings | are | calculated | as | the | ratio | of | maintenance | |
| and | repair | needs | (requirements) | to | plant | replacement | value. | The | resulting | percentages | are | ||
| then | aligned | against | the | OSD | Q-Rating | guidance | to | determine | the | overall | rating | of | the |
| facility. | Q-Ratings | will | be | developed | for | Permanent | (Perm) | and | Semi-Permanent | (Semi) |
03/05/18 Eielson Air Force Base
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 2
| types | of | construction | only. | Q-Ratings | will | not | be | developed | for | Temporary | (Temp) | and | ||||||
| Relocatable | (Relo) | types | of | construction. | Definitions | for | types | of | construction | are: | a) | |||||||
| Permanent | – | expected | to | be | used | for | more | than | 25 | years; | b) | Semi-permanent | – | expected | to | |||
| be | used | 5 | to | 25 | years; | c) | Temporary | – | expected | to | be | used | less | than | 5 | years; | and | d) |
| Relocatable | – | designed | for | specific | purpose | of | being | readily | moved, | erected, | disassembled, | |||||||
| stored, | and | reused | without | structural | damage | and | a | minimum | of | refurbishment. | ||||||||
| The | functional | adequacy | assessment | includes | two | parts: | spatial | adequacy | and | capacity. | ||||||||
| Spatial | adequacy | examines | the | size | of | core | spaces | within | the | facility | compared | to | the | |||||
| adopted | educational | specification | and | how | these | spaces | affect | the | school’s | capacity | and | |||||||
| learning | environment. | School | capacity | calculations | consider | the | instructional | spaces | and | |||||||||
| sizes | of | the | cafeteria | and | kitchen. | |||||||||||||
| Note: | Details | of | the | standards | and | processes | used | are | presented | in | Appendix | A, | Facility | |||||
| Condition | Assessment | Standards | and | Processes. |
| II. | SCHOOL PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION | |||||||
| a. | STRUCTURAL/EXTERIOR | ENCLOSURE: | The | building | exterior | is | primarily | exterior |
| insulation | finishing | system | (EIFS). | The | predominant | roofing | system | is | cementitious |
| panels. | Exterior | doors | are | predominantly | pre-finished | aluminum | with | glazing. | Window |
| systems | are | mostly | double | pane | glass | mounted | on | vinyl. |
| b. | INTERIORS: | Flooring | systems | used | include | resilient | tile, | wood, | ceramic | tile | and | carpet. |
| Walls | are | generally | painted | surfaces. | Ceilings | are | predominantly | exposed | structure. |
| c. | MECHANICAL: | Campus | facilities | have | heating | which | is | typically | provided | by | offsite |
| steam. | No | campus | facilities | have | air | conditioning. |
| d. | ELECTRICAL: | Major | electrical | upgrades | have | been | completed | to | support | the | computer | ||
| network, | but | most | wiring | appears | to | be | original. | Most | lighting | is | surface | mounted | |
| fixtures | with | fluorescent | lamps. | Ground-fault | circuit | interrupter | (GFCI) | receptacles | |||||
| appear | to | be | present | in | required | locations. | The | campus | has | an | intercom | system. | In |
| addition, | the | campus | has | a | security | system. |
| e. | PLUMBING: | Plumbing | fixtures | have | been | replaced | and | piping | has | been | partially |
| upgraded. | Domestic | hot | water | is | typically | provided | by | offsite | steam. |
III. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
| The | current | Q-Rating | for | Ben | Eielson | Junior/Senior | High | School | is | Q-2; | enrollment | at | the | |||
| time | of | the | site | visit | was | 351; | and | the | calculated | capacity | using | DoDEA | standards | is | 615. | |
| The | school | was | found | to | be | well | maintained | and | it | provided | a | fair | learning | environment. | As | |
| a | result | of | interviews | with | district | staff | and | visual | observations, | some | building | systems | ||||
| were | found | to | be | beyond | useful | service | life. | A | summary | of | all | systems | that | are | beyond | their |
| useful | service | life | is | contained | in | Table | 2, | Expired | Systems | (FY2018). | In | addition, | building | |||
| systems | forecasted | to | be | beyond | their | expected | service | life | by | FY2023 | are | summarized | in | |||
| Table | 3, | Expired | Systems | (Forecast | FY2023). |
03/05/18 Eielson Air Force Base
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 3
IV. QUALITY / CONDITION RATINGS
| Table | 1 | shows | building-specific | information | to | include | type | of | construction, | year | built, | ||
| gross | area, | Condition | Index | (CI) | and | Q-Rating. | Table | 2 | contains | requirements | and | plant | |
| replacement | values, | which | are | used | to | calculate | CI | and | Q-Ratings | shown | in | Table | 1. |
V. SUMMARY OF EXPIRED SYSTEMS (FY2018)
| Table | 2 | reflects | building | systems | that | are | beyond | service | life | and | that | should | be | replaced |
| now. | Please | note | requirements | and | plant | replacement | values | are | used | to | calculate | CI | and | |
| Q-Ratings | in | Table | 1. |
| The | PRV | and | maintenance | and | repair | requirements | should | be | considered | a | representative | |||
| value | and | should | not | be | used | for | any | other | purpose | than | to | calculate | CI. | Actual |
| construction | costs | may | deviate | from | the | current | published | dollar | values | due | to | local | ||
| market | fluctuations | and | any | unique | building | specifications. | In | the | event | a | facility | is | to | be |
| replaced | or | renovated, | a | more | detailed | cost | estimate | must | be | completed | to | validate |
funding.
| The | requirement | dollars | reflect | the | estimated | cost | of | necessary | maintenance | and | repairs | ||
| generated | from | the | cost | models | established | for | each | building | assessed. | See | Appendix | A | for |
| additional | detail. | Maintenance | and | repair | requirements | consist | of | the | work | necessary | to | ||
| ensure | the | asset | is | restored | to | a | condition | substantially | equivalent | to | the | originally | |
| intended | and | designed | capacity, | efficiency | or | capability. |
| The | Plant | Replacement | Value | (PRV) | is | calculated | using | industry | and | DoD | standard |
| methodology. | According | to | DoD | Pricing | Guide, | PRV represents the cost to design and |
construct a notional facility to current standards to replace an existing facility at the same location. The PRV represents the sum of the current estimated values of the building components.
TABLE 2: EXPIRED SYSTEMS (FY2018)
Building Systems Requirements Plant Replacement Value
(PRV)
| Main | Casework | $2,821,077 |
| Main | Computer Cooling | $376,246 |
| Main | Fire Alarm System | $360,889 |
| Main | Floor Finishes | $3,775,513 |
TABLE 1: QUALITY / CONDITION RATINGS
Current Forecast (FY2023)
Building2 Type of Construction
Year Built GSF CI (%) Q-
Rating CI + 5 Years Q- Rating
| Main | Perm | 1962 | 103,200 | 89% | Q-2 | 76% | Q-3 |
| Press Box | Semi | 1980 | 201 | 83% | Q-2 | 77% | Q-3 |
2 Building naming convention in agreement with local education agency.
03/05/18 Eielson Air Force Base
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 4
TABLE 2: EXPIRED SYSTEMS (FY2018)
Building Systems Requirements Plant Replacement Value
(PRV)
| Main | LAN | $545,173 | |
| Subtotal for Main: | $7,878,898 | $76,784,928 | |
| Press Box | Ceiling Finishes | $3,817 | |
| Press Box | Exit Lights | $67 | |
| Press Box | Exterior Doors | $823 | |
| Press Box | Exterior Finishes | $467 | |
| Press Box | Lighting | $4,995 | |
| Press Box | Roof Coverings | $12,491 | |
| Press Box | Wall Finishes | $2,109 | |
| Subtotal for Press Box: | $24,769 | $149,552 | |
| Grand Total: | $7,903,667 |
03/05/18 Eielson Air Force Base
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 5
VI. SUMMARY OF EXPIRED SYSTEMS (FORECAST FY2023)
| Table | 3 | reflects | building | systems | that | are | still | functional, | but | expected | to | be | beyond | useful |
| service | life | by | FY2023. |
TABLE 3: EXPIRED SYSTEMS FORECAST (FY2023)
Building Systems Requirements
| Main | Bleachers | $844,634 |
| Main | Ceiling Finishes | $1,959,550 |
| Main | Emergency Lights | $178,525 |
| Main | Exit Lights | $34,553 |
| Main | Exterior Finishes | $239,953 |
| Main | Intercom / PA System | $383,924 |
| Main | Plumbing Piping | $4,865,090 |
| Main | Security System | $222,676 |
| Main | Wall Finishes | $1,082,667 |
| Subtotal for Main: | $9,811,572 | |
| Press Box | Branch Circuits | $6,356 |
| Press Box | Electrical Service/Distribution | $2,477 |
| Subtotal for Press Box: | $8,833 | |
| Grand Total: | $9,820,405 |
03/05/18 Eielson Air Force Base
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 6
VII. FUNCTIONAL ADEQUACY SUMMARY
| The | Functional | Adequacy | study | for | this | facility | includes | school | capacity | and | spatial | ||
| analysis. | The | findings | are | summarized | and | deficiencies, | where | identified, | are | assigned | a | ||
| cost. | Representative | photos | of | interior | spaces | are | provided | at | the | end | of | the | summary. |
| a. | SCHOOL | CAPACITY | ANALYSIS | |||||||||||
| As | part | of | the | functional | adequacy | study, | a | student | capacity | was | computed | for | this | facility |
| using | the | data | collected | by | the | field | observers. | Capacity | calculations | were | based | on | the | |
| methodology | discussed | in | the | section | called | Facility | Condition | Assessment | Standards | and | ||||
| Processes. | Capacities | for | the | existing | classroom | count | and | kitchen | serving | line | follow: |
| There | are | no | classes | in | relocatable | |
| buildings; | there | are | two | classroom | sized | |
| spaces | that | are | not | being | used | for |
| instruction | that | contribute | to | permanent | ||
| capacity. | The | school | capacity | calculation | ||
| versus | enrollment | indicates | that | the | ||
| facility | needs | zero | additional | classrooms | ||
| to | support | the | school’s | programs. | The | |
| cost | for | additional | classroom | space | is | |
| shown | in | Table | 5 | under | the | grade |
| designation | of | 'ACN'. |
| Based | on | the | information | provided, | the | ||
| serving | line | appears | to | be | adequate | for | |
| the | number | of | students | participating. | |||
| Lunch | is | served | in | the | Cafeteria | and | the |
| number | and | length | of | lunch | periods | does | |
| not | appear | to | affect | its | use | for | other |
| activities. | The | school | does | have | a | separate | |
| gymnasium. | Corrective | action | for | food | |||
| service | areas | are | summarized | in | Table | 5: | |
| Functional | Adequacy | Opinion | of | Probable |
Cost.
CLASSROOM CAPACITY SUMMARY
School District Reported Capacity 616 Calculated Capacity (permanent construction) 615
Calculated Capacity (all construction types) 615
Enrollment 351 Additional Permanent Classrooms Needed 0
KITCHEN SERVING LINE CAPACITY SUMMARY
Number of Serving Lines 1 Number of Lunch Periods 2 Length of Lunch Periods (minutes) 35 Actual Lunches Served (total) 140 Kitchen Serving Line Capacity (total all periods) 350
03/05/18 Eielson Air Force Base
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 7
| b. | SPATIAL | ADEQUACY | ANALYSIS | |||||||||||
| The | space | types | studied | and | listed | below | in | Table | 4 | were | observed, | measured | on-site | and |
| compared | with | the | sizes | from | the | adopted | educational | specifications | of | the | Department | of | ||
| Defense | Education | Activity. |
| The | results | of | the | spatial | adequacy | analysis | indicate | deficiencies | in | space | at | the | school, | |||||
| according | to | the | size | standards | provided | in | the | DoDEA | Educational | Specifications. | The | |||||||
| food | service | area, | including | the | kitchen | and | serving | line, | is | too | small | per | DoDEA | standards. | ||||
| Spaces | that | are | far | below | the | DoDEA | size | standard | include | Family/Consumer | Science | and | ||||||
| Food | Service. | The | grades | shown | directly | correlate | to | costs | shown | in | Table | 5. | Spaces | |||||
| receiving | grades | of | 'D' | or | 'F' | are | existing | but | too | small. | Spaces | with | a | grade | of | 'R' | are | not |
| provided | but | are | required. |
TABLE 4: SPATIAL ADEQUACY RESULTS
Actual Provided
Number Provided
DoDEA Ed Spec
SPACE TYPE (avg. sf) in School (sf) Grade*
| General Purpose Classroom (All) | 813 | 22 | 900 | A |
| Art Room (All) | 1,613 | 2 | 1,650 | A |
| Family / Consumer Science | 1,182 | 1 | 2,000 | F |
| Cafeteria / Cafetorium | 4,694 | 1 | 2,991 | A |
| Gymnasium / Multipurpose | 20,827 | 2 | 11,856 | A |
| Information Center | 5,345 | 1 | 2,916 | A |
| Music Suite | 2,282 | 1 | 2,625 | B |
| Science Classroom (Chemistry) | 918 | 2 | 1,440 | D |
| Science Classroom (General Lab) | 841 | 2 | 1,200 | D |
| Science Lab (Prep Room) | 412 | 1 | 240 | A |
| Computer Lab | 971 | 2 | 1,300 | D |
| Special Needs | 971 | 2 | 1,600 | D |
| Food Service | 1,483 | 1 | 2,601 | F |
*Grade designations are explained in opinion of probable cost and are based on the DoDEA Educational Specifications only.
| c. | FUNCTIONAL | ADEQUACY | OPINION | OF | PROBABLE | COST |
| Table | 5 | reflects | functional | adequacy | costs. |
TABLE 5: FUNCTIONAL ADEQUACY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Grade Designation Space Type Cost R Non-Existent, Required $0
ACN Additional Classrooms Needed
The school capacity calculation indicates that no additional classrooms are needed. $0
F Inadequate Family/Consumer Science, Food Service. $3,737,000
D Marginal Science Classroom Chemistry, Science Classroom General, Computer Lab, Special Needs. $9,507,000
NR Not Required, Not Provided
Kindergarten, Pre-Kindergarten, Auditorium, General Music Room.
C Good B Very Good Music Suite.
A Exceptional General Purpose Classroom, Art Room, Cafeteria/Cafetorium, Gymnasium/Multipurpose Room, Information Center, Science Prep Room.
Total Opinion of Probable Cost $13,244,000
| Note | that | costs | for | functional | adequacy | deficiencies | are | provided | for | comparative | purposes | only | and | |||
| represent | a | rough | order | of | magnitude | of | anticipated | costs | per | square | foot | based | on | the | DoD | Facilities |
| Pricing | Guide | for | 2011. | Projects | to | address | noted | inadequacies | should | be | scoped | and | priced | individually. |
03/05/18 Eielson Air Force Base
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 8
VIII. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
| Ben | Eielson | Junior/Senior | High | School |
| Chemistry | Lab |
Ben Eielson Junior/Senior High School Cafetorium
Ben Eielson Junior/Senior High School Classroom
Ben Eielson Junior/Senior High School Library
Ben Eielson Junior/Senior High School Gym
| Ben | Eielson | Junior/Senior | High | School |
| Computer | Lab |
03/05/18 Eielson Air Force Base
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 9
Appendix A
03/05/18 Eielson Air Force Base
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 10
The following provides a summary of the standards and processes used for this project.
1.0 STANDARDS
| Applied | in | varying | degrees | of | rigor | as | defined | in | the | scope | of | work, | the | following | standards |
| are | the | basis | for | the | assessment | and | data | analyses | processes. | The | OSD | Quality | Rating | (Q- | |
| Rating) | for | the | physical | condition | of | buildings | and | other | guidance | listed | below | set | forth | ||
| the | standards | for | measurement | of | facility | physical | conditions. | ||||||||
| Life | safety | building | codes: |
| o International | Building | Code | (IBC) | |
| o National | Electric | Code | (NEC) | |
| o National | Fire | Protection | Association | (NFPA) |
| OSD | Facilities | Physical | Q-Rating | Guidance | |||||||
| OSD | Facilities | Sustainment | Model | (FSM) | |||||||
| DoD | Facilities | Pricing | Guide | for | FY | 2018 | (UFC-3-701-01, | Change | 13, | July | 2017) |
| DoDEA | Education | Facilities | Specifications | (Ed | Specs) |
Q-Ratings and Facilities Sustainment Model (FSM)
| Following | FSM | guidelines, | and | consistent | with | DoDEA | practice | this | assessment | uses | ||||
| Condition | Index | (CI) | and | Quality | Ratings | (Q-Ratings) | as | a | standard | of | measure | to | assess | |
| the | condition | of | all | public | schools | located | on | Department | of | Defense | installations. | The | CI, | |
| and | associated | Q-Ratings | are | calculated | as | the | ratio | of | maintenance | and | repair | needs | ||
| (requirements) | to | Plant | Replacement | Value. | The | resulting | percentages | are | then | aligned | ||||
| against | the | OSD | Q-Rating | guidance | to | determine | the | overall | rating | of | the | facility. | DoDEA | |
| has | been | an | active | participant | in | the | Q-Rating | working | group | since | its | formation | and | has |
| contracted | independent | Architectural | and | Engineering | (A/E) | firms | to | assess | school | |||||
| facilities | since | 2002. |
2.0 PROCESSES
| One | of | the | ways | DoDEA | headquarters | supports | its | organizations | is | by | providing | consistent | ||
| tools | and | metrics | of | performance | to | assist | them | in | their | management | of | facility | assets. | The |
| facility | assessment | processes | used | in | this | project | follow | basic | procedures | used | to | |||
| determine | system | level | current | and | forecast | physical | conditions, | and | functional | space- | ||||
| capacity | adequacy. | A | functional | adequacy | assessment | is | useful | in | comparing | instructional | ||||
| and | support | spaces | in | a | school | with | a | recognized | standard, | to | evaluate | the | impact | on |
| capacity | and | learning | environment. |
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 11
2.1 PHYSICAL FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENTS (FCA)
Physical FCAs are conducted in unison with Functional Adequacy (FA) FCAs.
| The | physical | FCA | provides | engineers | and | facility | planners | with | the | data | needed | to | help | ||||||
| make | informed | decisions | on | facility | sustainment. | It | is | designed | to | support | programming | ||||||||
| and | budgeting | for | current | and | future | capital | renewal | costs | quickly | and | accurately. | The | |||||||
| physical | FCA | provides | a | mathematical-parametric | model, | confirmed | by | site | survey, | of | a | ||||||||
| facility’s | component | building | systems | to | determine | its | current | and | predicted | conditions | |||||||||
| based | on | its | components’ | planned | life | cycles. | It | is | a | strategic | tool | for | programming | and | |||||
| budgeting | capital | renewal | costs | - | a | macro | view | of | facility | status. | Capital | renewal | is | the | |||||
| future, | systematic | replacement | of | building | component | and | utility | systems | to | extend | their | ||||||||
| useful | life | - | for | example; | a | roof | system | will | age | to | its | planned | life | in | 15 | years | and | will | need |
| replacement. | The | physical | FCA | records | information | related | to | these | systems, | so | that | facility | |||||||
| engineers | are | aware | of | the | remaining | useful | life | of | the | various | components, | and | of | the | costs | ||||
| associated | with | capital | renewal. |
| The | physical | FCAs | are | generally | conducted | at | three | levels | of | detail | - | Level | 1, | Level | 2 | and |
| Level | 3. | The | ‘Level’ | relates | to | the | amount | of | detail | describing | conditions, | and | corrections. | |||
| Longer | term | (> | 18 | months) | facility | project | planning | requires | less | detail | (Level | 1) | than | |||
| details | needed | to | support | project | definition | for | immediate | correction | (L2 | and | L3; | within | 6 | |||
| to | 18 | months). |
2.1.1 LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT
| Level | 1 | assessments | are | physical | condition | assessments | in | which | deficiencies | are | |||
| categorized | into | two | groups; | architectural | and | mechanical, | electrical | and | plumbing | (MEP). | |||
| Results | include | rough | order | of | magnitude | (ROM) | cost | estimates | to | replace | systems | and/or | |
| sub-systems | that | are | currently | beyond | expected | useful | service | life, | and | future | renewal | ||
| requirements | for | systems | and/or | sub-systems | with | remaining | service | life. | A | district | |||
| engineer | and | facility | planners | can | use | this | information | to | identify | projects | that | may | include |
| repair | or | replacement | of | expired | systems | and | sub-systems. | In | the | case | of | currently | expired |
| systems, | engineers | and | planners | may | use | the | ROM | correction | estimate | for | preliminary | ||
| budgeting. | The | district | engineer | should | then | confirm | the | system | or | sub-systems | are | ||
| beyond | are | expired | and | no | longer | functioning | adequately, | and | conduct | a | Level | 3 | |
| assessment | to | determine | specific | scope | and | budget | requirements | for | the | project. |
| A | Level | 1 | assessment | predicts | facility | component | life | expirations | using | |||
| statistical | guidelines | developed | by | Building | Owners | and | Managers | Association | (BOMA) | |||
| and | endorsed | by | national | facility | management | organizations | such | as | the | Council | for | |
| Educational | Facility | Planners | International | and | the | Association | for | Higher | Education | |||
| Facility | Officers | (AHEFO). | Also | used | is | R.S. | Means, | a | nationally | recognized | reference | for |
| cost | data, | to | model | component | building | systems’ | costs. | Deficiency | and | renewal | cost | |
| estimates | are | adjusted | using | DoD | local | area | cost | factors | (UFC-3-701-01, | July | 2017 | UNIFIED |
| FACILITIES | CRITERIA | (UFC) | DoD | FACILITIES | PRICING | GUIDE | FOR | FY | 2017). |
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 12
The Level 1 physical FCA generally consists of:
Build Cost Models
| Developing | and | updating | cost | models | of | the | buildings | to | be | studied | by | reviewing | existing |
| documents | and | interviewing | maintenance | staffs | to | determine | types, | age, | and | ||||
| components | of | buildings, | and | the | last | renewal | of | each | component. | Each | building | ||
| component | is | then | assigned | a | useful | life | according | to | BOMA | standards, | or | local | |
| experience, | and | estimated | replacement | cost | using | cost | per | square | foot | data | |||
| provided | by | DoD | and | R.S. | Means. | However, | a | system’s | actual | life | can | vary | |
| significantly | from | BOMA | standards | under | existing | conditions | - | lack | of | routine | |||
| maintenance, | environmental | conditions, | inappropriate | design, | or | poor | installation | ||||||
| shortens | system | and | building | useful | lives. | System | life | cycles | are | adjusted | to | fit | a |
| facility | manager’s | actual | experience. |
| For | example, | BOMA | uses | five | years | to | estimate | the | useful | life | of | exterior | painting. | |
| If | a | facility | manager’s | standards | are | to | repaint | every | three | years | in | lieu | of | the |
| BOMA | recommended | five | years, | adjustment | to | the | model’s | life | cycle | criteria | for | |||
| painting | is | added. |
| As | another | example, | a | four-ply | built-up | roof | may | have | a | current | renewal | value | of | $2.09 | |
| per | SF | and | a | life | expectancy | of | 25 | years. | If | we | find | through | records | review | or |
| interviews | that | the | existing | roof | is | 30 | years | old | in | the | example | above, | we | know | the |
| roof | is | five | years | beyond | its | expected | life. | The | result | is | an | immediate | need | for | |
| capital | renewal | for | the | roof | system | using | an | area | cost | factor | adjusted | budget | of | ||
| $2.09 | per | SF | plus | the | renewal | premiums | to | complete | the | replacement. | Renewal- | ||||
| replacement | premiums | may | include | cost | for | items | such | as | installing | a | new | built-up | |||
| roof | on | an | existing | building | that | requires | removing | the | old | roof-premium | costs | for | |||
| demolition, | dumpster | charges, | replacement | difficulty, | special | requirements, | and | ||||||||
| other | anticipated | costs | are | added | to | complete | the | roof | replacement | cost | projection. |
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 13
SAMPLE GENERIC COST MODEL
SYSTEM SUB SYSTEM
% of TOTAL
PRV
EXPECTED
USEFUL LIFE % RENEWED1
Architectural Bleachers 1.31% 15 110.00% Architectural Casework 3.66% 20 110.00% Architectural Ceiling Finishes 2.47% 15 110.00% Architectural Exterior Doors 0.53% 15 110.00% Architectural Exterior Finishes 0.26% 7 125.00% Architectural Fixed Seating 1.01% 15 110.00% Architectural Exterior Walls 4.63% 70 0.00% Architectural Exterior Windows 3.31% 25 110.00% Architectural Floor Finishes 4.75% 12 110.00% Architectural Foundations 9.05% 70 0.00% Architectural Moveable Interior Walls/Partitions 1.00% 15 110.00% Architectural Interior Doors 2.15% 25 100.00% Architectural Student Lockers 1.90% 20 110.00% Architectural Interior Walls 7.69% 70 0.00% Architectural Roof Coverings 0.55% 25 120.00% Architectural Superstructure 15.02% 70 0.00% Architectural Wall Finishes 1.50% 25 100.00% MEP Branch Circuits 4.52% 20 100.00% MEP Electrical Service/Distribution 1.96% 30 90.00% MEP Elevators 0.55% 25 75.00% MEP Emergency Lights 0.33% 15 75.00% MEP Exit Lights 0.06% 20 75.00% MEP Fire Alarm System 0.50% 20 100.00% MEP Fire Sprinklers 1.38% 25 130.00% MEP HVAC Cooling Equipment 6.61% 10 110.00% MEP HVAC Distribution 2.23% 30 110.00% MEP HVAC Heating Equipment 2.54% 30 110.00% MEP HVAC Hydronics 2.84% 30 110.00% MEP Intercom / PA System 0.53% 15 100.00% MEP Kitchen Hoods 0.32% 25 0.00%
MEP LAN 0.75% 15 100.00%
MEP Lighting 3.56% 15 100.00% MEP Plumbing Fixtures 4.09% 20 110.00% MEP Plumbing Piping 6.13% 20 110.00% MEP Security System 0.31% 15 100.00% 100.00%
1Percent renewed is used to account for differences between new construction and restoration costs. When restoration of a system requires substantial demolition and disposal costs, percent renewed is greater than the cost of new construction (Percent renewed is greater than 100 percent). When restoration of a system allows use of some elements of the initial construction and demolition and disposal costs are minimal, the percent renewed is less than the cost of new construction (Percent renewed is less than 100 percent).
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 14
Confirm Cost Models
| In | this | step, | the | contractor | confirms | the | cost | modeling | developed | in | the | preceding | step. | ||||
| This | is | necessary | because | facilities | upgrades | and | repairs | are | frequently | not | documented, | ||||||
| and | actual | remaining | life | in | a | component | may | vary | from | manufacturers’ | guidelines. | To | |||||
| confirm | the | cost | model, | the | contractor | surveys | appropriate | facility | areas | after | developing | ||||||
| the | cost | models | to | validate | the | data | in | the | cost | models. | As | an | example, | a | component’s | ||
| record | shows | it | to | be | expired, | but | a | field | survey | may | find | that | it | was | already | replaced | and |
| not | documented. | Cost | models | are | changed | to | reflect | actual | conditions | and | records | ||||||
| observed | on | site. | They | are | then | able | to | identify | obvious | deficiencies | that | are | out | of | |||
| sequence | with | the | component’s | useful | life | (i.e., | roof | leaks | in | a | new | roof, | failed | window | |||
| gaskets, | under | - | or | over | - | conditioned | air | in | building). | Data | collected | includes | digital | ||||
| photographs | of | each | building | to | help | record | the | facility | condition. | Photographs | are | linked | |||||
| to | individual | building | reports | within | the | cost | modeling | software | and | are | a | part | of | the | |||
| overall | database. |
2.1.2 FCA DATA ANALYSES
| In | multiple | building | portfolios | and | especially | with | widespread | geographic | portfolios, | it | is | ||||
| important | to | know | how | building | conditions | compare. | The | Condition | Index | (CI) | and | Quality | |||
| Ratings | (Q-Ratings) | are | determined | for | each | building | assessed | using | guidelines | shown | |||||
| below, | which | are | taken | directly | from | the | DoD | Facility | Quality-Rating | guidance | dated | 5 | |||
| September | 2007. | ||||||||||||||
| Condition Index (CI) – A | measure | of | the | constructed | asset’s | condition | at | a | specific | point | |||||
| in | time | with | respect | to | physical | condition | and | ability | to | support | the | current | occupant | or | |
| mission. | CI | is | calculated | as | the | ratio | of | estimated | cost | of | maintenance | and | repair | ||
| requirements | to | Plant | Replacement | Value | (PRV). | Maintenance | and | repair | requirements | ||||||
| consist | of | that | work | necessary | to | ensure | that | a | constructed | asset | is | restored | to | a | condition |
| substantially | equivalent | to | the | originally | intended | and | designed | capacity, | efficiency | or |
capability.
| Facility Physical Quality Rating – Real | Property | Inventory | data | field | that | captures | the |
| CI | rating. |
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 15
| Plant Replacement Value – Cost | of | replacing | the | existing | constructed | asset | at | today’s | ||||
| standards, | adjusted | for | location | (Area | Cost | Factor; | ACF), | overhead | costs | such | as | planning |
| and | design | (P&D), | supervision, | inspection | and | overhead | factor | (SIOF), | and | other | ||
| construction | overhead | costs | (reference | United | Facilities | Criteria | (UFC) | 3-701-10, | para | 3- | ||
| 2.2) | The | formula | for | PRV | is: |
| Plant | Replacement | Value | = | Facility | Quantity | x | Replacement | Unit | Cost | x | Area | Cost | Factor1 | x |
| Historical | Records | Adjustment2 | x | Planning | and | Design | Factor3 | x | Supervision | Inspection | ||||
| and | Overhead | Factor4 | x | Contingency | Factor5 |
1A geographic location adjustment for costs of labor, material, and equipment, published in Chapter 4.
2An adjustment to account for increased costs for replacement of historical facilities or for construction in a historic district; the current value of the factor is 1.05.
3 A factor to account for the planning and design of a facility; the current value of this factor is 1.09 for all but medical facilities and 1.13 for medical facilities.
4 A factor to account for the supervision, inspection, and overhead activities associated with the management of a construction project; the current value of the factor is 1.057 for facilities in the continental US (CONUS) and 1.065 for facilities outside the continental US (OCONUS).
5 A factor to account for construction contingencies; the current value of the factor is 1.05.
| Rated Asset – Per | Federal | Real | Property | Council | (FRPC) | 2007 | Guidance | for | Real |
| Inventory | Reporting, | all | buildings | and | structures | are | to | be | rated. |
| Requirements (for CI/Q-Rating Calculations) – Per | FRPC, | “repair | needs” | (numerator | in | |||||||||||
| the | calculation) | is | “the | amount | necessary | to | ensure | that | a | facility | is | restored | to | a | condition | |
| substantially | equivalent | to | the | originally | intended | and | designed | capacity, | efficiency, | or | ||||||
| capability.” | (FRPC | 2007 | Guidance | for | Real | Inventory | Reporting, | page | 10, | paragraph | 11) | |||||
| DoD | Q-Rating | calculations | equate | to | work | required | to | correct | existing | facility | deficiencies | |||||
| through | sustainment, | restoration, | and | modernization, | or | replacement | to | achieve | a | |||||||
| serviceable | condition | fully | able | to | support | the | current | mission | or | function | of | the | facility. | |||
| The | table | below | provides | a | quick | reference | for | work | to | be | “included” | in | the | condition | ||
| assessment | formula | numerator | for | computing | Q-Ratings | for | existing | assets. | Also | shown | is | |||||
| work | “excluded” | from | condition | assessments | for | calculating | Q-Ratings. | Work | is | excluded | ||||||
| when | it | is | specifically | required | to | convert | a | facility | to | another | use; | or | when | the | result | is |
| new | footprint | construction | (regardless | of | fund | source, | e.g. | O&M, | NAF, | MILCON, | etc.). |
Formula Numerator Facilities Sustainment Facilities Restoration and
Modernization
Included Sustainment requirements that are present are materially degrading the condition of a facility
Repair requirements to restore or replace facility components, services systems, or meet codes or mission needs (except conversion)
Excluded Regularly scheduled adjustments and inspections; preventive maintenance tasks
Conversion and “new footprint” construction
𝐶𝐼 = 1 − '()*+,-).)/01
2(3
4x 100
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 16
| Q-Rating Bands: | Bands | allow | OSD, | Military | Services, | and | Defense | Agencies/Activities | to | |
| group | facilities | by | condition | for | the | purposes | of | developing | investment | strategies. |
TABLE 1: Q-RATING DESCRIPTIONS
Rating Band
Calculated Rating (Condition Index)
General Description
Q-1 100% to 90% Facility new or well maintained (Good Condition)
Q-2 89% to 80% Facility is satisfactorily maintained (Fair Condition)
Q-3 79% to 60% Facility is under maintained (Poor Condition)
Q-4 59% to 0% Facility should be considered for replacement (Failing Condition)
2.2 FUNCTIONAL ADEQUACY
| The | functional | adequacy | study | is | comprised | of | two | parts: | spatial | adequacy, | and | capacity | |
| coupled | with | specialized | instructional | programs | at | secondary | campuses. | Spatial | adequacy | ||||
| examines | the | size | of | core | spaces | within | the | facility | compared | to | the | DoDEA | educational |
| specifications, | and | how | these | spaces | affect | the | school’s | capacity | and | learning | environment. | ||
| Information | on | state | and | local | educational | specifications | is | also | collected. | School | capacity | ||
| calculations | consider | the | instructional | spaces | and | the | size | of | the | cafeteria | and | kitchen. | |
| Middle | schools | and | high | schools | may | also | offer | professional | and | vocational | preparatory | ||
| courses | that | contribute | to | the | educational | environment. | The | survey | includes | interviews | |||
| with | administrative | and | facilities | personnel | with | the | Local | Education | Agencies, | installation | |||
| points | of | contact, | and | review | of | available | construction | drawings, | space | utilization | plans, | ||
| and | current | enrollment | data. | Representative | photographs | are | taken | to | give | readers | a | feel | |
| for | instructional | and | support | spaces | at | the | facility. |
2.2.1 SPATIAL ADEQUACY ANALYSIS
| Typical | school | space | types | for | the | spatial | adequacy | analysis | have | been | identified | in | the | |
| scope | of | work | and | include | those | that | are | common | to | the | school | categories | identified. | These |
| spaces | contribute | heavily | to | the | capacity | of | the | school | and | the | overall | environment | for | |
| learning. | The | spaces | to | be | observed | for | the | functional | adequacy | study | are: |
| 1. | General | Purpose | Classroom |
| 2. | Kindergarten | ||
| 3. | Pre-Kindergarten/Sure | Start | |
| 4. | Art | Room | |
| 5. | Auditorium | ||
| 6. | Family | Consumer | Science |
| 7. | General | Music | Room |
| 8. | Cafeteria/Multipurpose | Room | |
| 9. | Gymnasium |
| 10. | Information | Center/Media | Center/Library | ||
| 11. | Music | Suite | (Band | or | Choral) |
| 12. | Science | Classroom | (Chemistry) | ||
| 13. | Science | Classroom | (General | Lab) | |
| 14. | Science | Prep | Room | ||
| 15. | Food | Service/Kitchen | |||
| 16. | Computer | Lab | |||
| 17. | Special | Needs |
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 17
| The | school | space | types | listed | were | observed, | measured | on-site, | and | compared | with | the | ||
| sizes | from | the | DoDEA | educational | specifications. | |||||||||
| The | governing | size | standards | used | for | this | study | are | the | DoDEA | Educational | Specifications, | ||
| which | represent | a | single | and | consistent | benchmark | for | space | type | comparisons. | A | |||
| corresponding | letter | grade | is | shown | for | each | space | based | on | how | closely | it | meets | the |
| DoDEA | specifications. | Neither | the | Local | Education | Agency | nor | State | Education | Agency | ||||
| educational | specifications | are | used | in | determining | grades | or | cost. | The | following | ratios | of | ||
| actual | size | to | DoDEA | educational | specifications | summarize | the | letter | grade | rating | system: |
| These | ratios | match | the | metric | used | by | DoDEA. | Spaces | scoring | a | ‘D’ | or | ‘F’ | do | not | meet | the | size |
| standard | for | an | adequate | space | and | are | assigned | a | cost | for | corrective | action | using | the | ||||
| Uniform | Facilities | Pricing | Guide | (UFC | 3-701-01, | July | 2017). | The | assessment | also | addresses | |||||||
| key | non-existent | spaces | such | as | auditoriums, | cafeterias, | gymnasium/multipurpose | rooms, | ||||||||||
| information | centers | and | kitchens. | Non-existent | spaces | are | assigned | a | new | construction | cost | |||||||
| for | the | entire | square | footage | that | is | not | provided. |
2.2.1.1 COST MODEL FOR SPATIAL ADEQUACY
| Costs | for | Marginal | and | Inadequately | sized | spaces | (Grades | D | and | F) | are | computed | using | the |
| following | formula: |
Grade D or F Cost = (((Undersized Room Square Footage x MILCON $/SF) x 50%) + ((DoDEA Ed Spec Size Std x MILCON $/SF) x 50%)) x (Installation Area Location Factor) x (Escalation to 2020) x (Gross to Net SF ratio of 1.42) x (State’s Gross Receipts or excise tax, if applicable)
Costs for Non-existent, required spaces (Grade R) are computed using the following formula:
Grade R Cost = (DoDEA Ed Spec Size Std x MILCON $/SF) x (Installation Area Location Factor) x (Escalation to 2020) x (Gross to Net SF ratio of 1.42) x (State’s Gross Receipts or excise tax, if applicable)
ROOM SPACE GRADING CRITERIA
Grade Description
A 90%-100% Exceptional: Classroom exceeds the size standard and provides modern enhancements. Provides an exceptional learning environment.
B 80%-89% Very Good: Classroom provides minimal standards in all areas.
C 75%-79% Good: Classroom provides adequate learning environment, but does not meet all standards
D 60%-74% Marginal: Classroom provides the minimally adequate learning environment.
F <59% Inadequate: Classroom size does not provide a proper, adequate learning environment.
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 18
| It | is | important | to | note | that | costs | reported | do | not | consider | the | modernization | costs | that | |||
| could | be | incurred | to | other | spaces | in | the | facility | as | a | result | of | modifying | or | adding | to | the |
| space | types | noted | in | this | report | that | show | a | corrective | cost. | For | example, | if | a | cafeteria | or | |
| kitchen | is | enlarged | to | meet | space | needs, | it | might | trigger | life | safety | code | or | ADA | (Americans | ||
| with | Disabilities | Act) | improvements | to | the | facilities | or | adjoining | spaces | that | add | cost. | A | ||||
| detailed | life | safety | and | ADA | review | of | facilities | is | not | part | of | the | scope | of | this | report. | |
| Furthermore, | there | are | cases | where | a | local | or | state | educational | specification | space | type | |||||
| size | is | larger | than | the | DoDEA | size. | These | requirements | can | vary | significantly | as | can | their | |||
| enforcement. | As | such, | additional | cost | for | these | requirements | is | a | potential | that | should | be | ||||
| investigated | further | if | improvements | are | planned. | Costs | for | compliance | with | local | and | state | |||||
| education | agency | requirements | are | not | included | in | this | report. | Information | on | these | state | |||||
| and | local | educational | specifications | is | part | of | the | data | collection | phase | so | that | additional | ||||
| analysis | can | be | made | if | needed. |
2.2.2 SCHOOL CAPACITY ANALYSIS
| As | part | of | the | functional | adequacy | study, | student | capacities | are | computed | for | each | facility | |
| using | the | data | collected | by | the | field | assessment | teams. | The | numbers | of | each | contributing | |
| space | are | counted, | measured, | and | their | average | size | noted. | Average | sizes | are | based | on | a |
| representative | sampling | of | spaces. | Capacity | calculations | are | based | on | the | DoDEA | Facility | |||
| Capacity | Calculation | Model. | Two | calculated | capacity | values | are | shown: | one | for | the | |||
| permanent | construction | type | and | one | value | for | all | building | construction | types. | A | capacity | ||
| value | from | the | Local | Education | Agency | is | also | reported, | when | given. | In | facilities | where | |
| inadequate | space | is | identified | to | house | the | current | student | load, | based | on | the | DoDEA | |
| Capacity | Model, | a | cost | for | the | additional | square | footage | needed | to | accommodate | them | is | |
| shown. | This | cost | is | only | computed | based | on | the | permanent | construction | type | capacity. | ||
| The | DoDEA | Capacity | model | calculates | capacity | for | an | elementary | school | as: |
(Number of General Purpose, Kindergarten, Pre-Kindergarten, and General Science Classrooms, including classroom-sized spaces that could be used as classrooms) x 19 students per space
| The | DoDEA | Capacity | model | calculates | capacity | for | middle | schools | and | high | schools | based |
| on | the | number | of | teaching | stations | for | full | and | partial | contributing | spaces: |
Middle Schools (Number of Full Contributing Teaching Stations) x (22 students each) x (85% efficiency factor) + (Number of Partial Contributing Teaching Stations) x (10 students each)
High Schools (Number of Full Contributing Teaching Stations) x (20 students each) x (85% efficiency factor) + (Number of Partial Contributing Teaching Stations) x (10 students each)
| Examples | of | full | contributing | spaces | include | classrooms, | science | labs, | computer | labs, | |||||
| gym/multipurpose, | music | suite, | information | center, | art | rooms, | and | classroom-sized | spaces | ||||||
| that | could | be | used | as | classrooms. | An | example | of | a | partial | contributing | space | is | a | special |
| needs | room. |
Contract: W91236-17-C-0012 BEN EIELSON JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 19
| An | analysis | of | existing | serving | line | capacity | for | the | kitchen | at | each | school | is | provided. | |
| Ideally, | lunch | periods | will | last | less | than | 90 | minutes. | For | the | purposes | of | this | study, | when |
| the | total | length | of | lunch | period | exceeds | 90 | minutes | or | has | more | than | four | different | periods, |
| the | report | will | indicate | that | cafeteria | usage | for | other | activities, | besides | dining, | may | be | ||
| limited. | The | serving | line | capacity | shown | is | calculated | using | four | students | per | minute | at | the | |
| elementary | level | and | an | average | of | five | students | per | minute | at | the | secondary | level. |
2.2.2.1 COST MODEL FOR CAPACITY
| Additional | Classrooms | Needed | (Grade | ACN | spaces) | costs | are | also | reported | to | address |
| capacity | shortfalls | in | the | number | of | classrooms | provided. | The | school’s | enrollment | is |
| compared | to | the | permanent | capacity | calculated | from | the | DoDEA | Capacity | Model. | Where |
| enrollment | exceeds | calculated | permanent | capacity, | a | number | for | additional | classrooms | is | |
| calculated | using | that | difference | in | students, | with | the | appropriate | efficiency | factor | applied. |
The cost for additional classrooms is:
Grade ACN Cost = (DoDEA Ed Spec Size Std for General Purpose Classroom x MILCON $/SF) x (Installation Area Location Factor) x (Escalation to 2020) x (Gross to Net SF ratio of 1.42) x (State’s Gross Receipts or excise tax, if applicable)
| Costs | for | inadequate | kitchen | and | cafeteria | serving | capacity | are | addressed | within | the | cost |
| model | for | inadequately | sized | or | non-existent | spaces. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .