Thank you
Premium Sponsors!

For more information about becoming a website sponsor, please click here.

Overview

25 states have used standardized plans for school buildings-and abandoned the idea. Why? Because there were no savings and school districts received an inferior product. Stock plans are not economical, not efficient, and not flexible.

California has studied the use of stock plans repeatedly, including in the 1950s when we were building to accommodate post-war immigration. The concept was raised again in the 1960s and 1970s when we needed to accommodate the baby boomers and is currently under discussion in response to new immigration and population growth. Each time, the California Department of Education and the Legislature have determined that stock plans do not answer individual school district or curriculum needs, can add to construction costs and do not save design fees.*

______________________________
* Although California has had a stock plans program for rural schools of nine classrooms or less on the books since 1977 (Education Code Section 39111), and some sort of stock plans program since 1959. no school district has ever utilized the program. In addition, schools which have attempted to reuse plans after fires, did not experience any significant savings, due to changed building codes and advances in building technology.

Are there such things as stock plans?

1. Site conditions vary widely across a state such as California and even within individual communities. For each project, a stock plan would need to be modified to adjust to terrain, soil, site north-south, east-west orientation, and weather conditions. “Stock plans” is a layman's term. Professional architects, planners, and engineers know that no two school buildings can be built with identical plans and specifications. Architects already use many stock details from their own previous work, and others’ work in order to draw up the plans at all. No matter how similar two structures are, architects and engineers must still prepare:
   • Civil engineering surveys and contour maps of existing and proposed grades. Drainage must be engineered to the site.

   • Site plan showing access roads, curbings, sidewalks, paving, outdoor physical education facilities, and general landscaping.

   • Foundation plans designed for the soil bearing ability, site contours, and earthquake requirements of each site.

   • Structural drawings and calculations for any school with conditions varying from the original school plans, such as snow loads, earthquake values, wind conditions, climatic requirements for energy savings, etc. . .

   • Plumbing plans for each site condition. Each site has different service distribution and metering requirements.

   • Heating and ventilating plans will vary in different climatic zones, with different fuels, etc...

   • In addition, district curriculum requirements, population type, future additions, site orientation, or other unknowns affect the architectural drawings. For instance, one would not want west facing windows on the desert.

2. Stock plans don't create standard schools but "minimum schools" designed on a minimum budget to an imaginary physical and educational program. Stock plans do not consider the specific needs and requirements of a school such as curriculum, vocational and security priorities. Even if schools attempt to re-use plans, often changes based on programmatic concerns must be made.

3. By standardizing design and specifications, the eligible pool of building product manufacturers and suppliers will be severly limited. Stock plans will increase building product costs by limiting competition.

4. By using only specific building materials, products and techniques, which are quickly outdated by new technologies, schools are precluded from the use of new and improved products. Stock plans set up a system of built-in obsolescence. In addition, availability and cost of building materials vary in different areas of the state, necessitating an efficient designer to match construction materials specifications to each site.

5. Plans would be prepared by persons not responsible to the school district who is buying the facility. Non-educators would decide what is good and what is bad. Stock plans would increase state control at the expense of local control.

How does clouded liability affect project cost?

The question of liability becomes extremely cloudy when stock plans are modified. When a stock plan is modified (as it must be to fit every individual project), an architect must be hired to perform the modification. Architects could easily be held liable for building failures to which they did not contribute, because their required stamp and signature on the documents make them responsible to the final product. Professional liability insurers agree that the use of stock plans may result in poorly adapted designs resulting in an increase in litigation and higher insurance premiums in an area where premiums are already very high. Inevitably, the high cost of insurance adds to the total project cost.

California law prohibits an architect from signing and stamping construction documents which he or she did not personally prepare or directly supervise. An architect who violates this law is subject to disciplinary action, including citation, fine, and/or possible suspension or loss of license. (Business and Professions Code Section 5586) Given these two considerations, an architect hired to use existing documents would essentially disassemble the plans and re-calculate each element in order to be assured they are designed to his or her own standard of care. The costs and time involved in such a task are considerable, and could easily outweigh many of the benefits anticipated through use of stock plans.

Can architectural services and fees be eliminated by using stock plans?

First, it should be made clear that the issue is not the desire to eliminate service so much as the desire to eliminate fees. It is difficult to obtain one without paying the other. California law requires that a licensed architect prepare plans and supervise the construction of schools.** Architects are usually hired to assume responsibility for architectural work plus coordination and supervision of all professional services.

In addition, to basic design and professional supervision, the architect is also expected to provide assistance with state forms and applications, as well as provide construction administration services for the school district. None of these basic services would be eliminated with stock plans. For example, regardless of whether stock plans are used, the architect must:

• Prepare cost estimates and documents for various state agencies.

• Process all drawings and documents through state, county and local government agencies having jurisdiction.

• Prepare contract documents which provide a complete description of the construction contract. (This includes: instructions to bidders describing all bidding conditions; preparation of bid forms; preparation and execution of contracts between the school district and various contractors and suppliers; preparation of addenda; and review of insurances and surety bonds.)

• Supervise the contract. (This includes: assisting the district in the selection of job inspectors; interpreting the plans and specifications for inspectors and contractors; and helping to coordinate the work of contractors.)

• Review and approve shop drawings for mill work and sheet metal work.

• Investigate, recommend and approve substitution of materials and products where requested or required.

• Select finish materials and colors as required by the specifications.

• Prepare change orders as required during construction; check all items of cost occasioned by such change orders; and secure approval of owner and various state agencies.

• Check and transmit the inspector's bi-monthly reports to the owner and the Division of the State Architect (DSA). Prepare and submit quarterly affidavats of the “progress of work” to DSA and the owner.

• Check material test reports for the soundness of concrete and steel materials being installed, and report deficiencies to the Division of the State Architect and the contractor. (It is also the architect's job to see that deficiencies are corrected by the contractor.)

• Check the contractor's monthly requests for payment, and prepare the “architect's certificate” which advises the owner that the contractor's request is correct and ready for payment.

• Perform final inspection of the building and advise the owner that it is ready for acceptance.

• Prepare “notices of completion”. Secure guarantees for roofing, mechanical and electrical equipment, etc. .. from the subcontractors. Obtain the “one-year guarantee of work” from the general contractor.

What is the real cost of design?

Proper design can lower construction costs and help lower the life-cycle costs that occur once the facility is in operation. A public school should be built to last and remain functional for 40 years or more. The true cost of a school is not the construction price but the life-cycle costs in terms of maintenance, up-keep, energy use and practicality. In short, a facility that is not properly designed for its function, use and environment will cost much more to operate.

What are other benefits of site and community specific design?

Traditionally, California public schools have been designed and built to operate as crucial local disaster shelters during earthquakes, such as the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989 and, more recently, the Big Bear/Landers and Cape Mendocino Earthquakes of 1992. In addition, many schools now double up as community centers, and directly link with parks and other community recreational facilities. Without significant modification, stock plans could never anticipate and attain the efficiencies of joint community facility use.

Conclusion

Although stock plans may seem a panacea for saving time and money, experience in California and across the country has shown that these hopes for stock plans are a myth. In reality, stock plans prove to be an inefficient, costly, and inflexible method of designing schools, A stock plan, instead of providing a simple path to constructing a facility, almost invariably provides only a series of obstacles that must be fully recharted before an acceptable design outcome can be reached. Stock plans are the classic case of a “penny-wise, pound foolish.”