CASH

Introduction
Financial
Pre-Design
Design
Construction
Occupancy
Maintenance and Operations
About the Resource Center
Terms of Use

Keyword Search

Thank you
Premium Sponsors!

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

CASH Facility Resource Center

FOOT NOTES TO
REPORT OF STANDARD (OR STOCK) PLAN SURVEY
BY
FRANK G. CLOER, DIRECTOR
FACILITIES SERVICES SECTION
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
TWIN TOWERS EAST
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30334-5050

27 JANUARY 1992

Please note that the responses received from school systems in the State of Georgia refer exclusively to the use of plans developed specifically for that particular school system.

Some of the school systems responded that they intended to or had used plans developed for a specific school within their system more than one time (repeat plans). Typically, the terrain, climate, parties involved in decision making, etc. are the same or similar within a single school system.

Problems encountered when using repeat plans are minimal compared to the development and use of standard plans that must be designed for a much broader geographical area and for a more diverse group of "consumers".

Therefore, responses regarding the use of plans more than one time by a single school system, should not be compared to the responses received from states regarding the use of standard (or stock) plans.

REPORT OF
STANDARD (OR STOCK) PLAN SURVEY

On September 5, 1991, a survey was mailed to the 50 State Departments of Education and to the 184 public school Superintendents in Georgia. The survey instrument was designed to determine If any states or any public school system in Georgia had ever used and/or were currently using standard or stock plans for construction or new schools.

Responses Received from States

Of the 50 surveys mailed to State Departments of Education, 41 responses were received. Research conducted by American Institute of Architects (AIA) in 1953 indicates that 15 states used Stock plans some time in the past; however, only four states responded that standard or stock plans had ever been used. None of the states responding indicated that they currently used standard plans and specifications for construction of new schools. One of these four states (Colorado) indicated that standard or stock plans were being used for "portable-type", two classroom structures only; therefore, the response from Colorado was treated as though the state had responded that they did not use standard or stock plans. Only three other states (Maine, New York, and Virginia) responded that they had used standard or stock plans in the past but were not currently using standard plans and specifications.

Although this sample size is much too small to generalize to other populations, it is interesting to note that these three states do not recommend the use of standard or stock plans for construction of elementary, middle, nor high schools (not even for the 4-10 room schools constructed In Maine),

Nine states indicated that their legislatures had requested data regarding the feasibility of developing and using standard or stock plans for construction of new schools. Since the data and documentation submitted by these nine states to support their position is quite lengthy the attached summary provides an overview of the documentation submitted by each of these states as well as their stated position regarding this issue. Based on the survey data, no states are are currently using standard or stock plans and specifications for construction of new schools.

Responses Received From Georgia School Systems

Of the 184 surveys mailed to Georgia School Superintendents, a total of 154 surveys were returned. This represents a response rate of 83.69%. A total of 10 Georgia School Systems responded that they had used or were using standard or stock plans; however, further investigation revealed that 9 of these school systems were referring to the use of plans developed specifically for their school system that were used more than one time. During the period from 1950 to 1993, a total of 39 new schools will have been completed from plans and specifications that were used more than one time by these nine systems. One of the nine systems indicated they intend to reuse plans and specifications developed for a school that is currently under construction, however, use of these plans and specifications for construction of a second (or subsequent) schools is not planned in the immediate future.

Although the sample of school systems responding to use of plans and specifications more than one time within their school system is too small to generalize to a larger population, it is interesting to note that the most important advantage ranked by these systems was the provision of comparable facilities within their school system. Of the most important disadvantages, site adaptation was ranked highest, with obsolescence of plans and programmatic constraints ranked next in importance.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM OTHER STATES

CALIFORNIA

California reported that they had never used stock plans; however; they provided a copy of "Stock Plans for Schools—Chimera or Panacea?" developed by the Bureau of School Planning, California State Department of Education. This document poses and provides answers for the following questions:

  1. Are there such things as stock plans?

  2. Would school districts use stock plans if they were available?

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

  4. Can districts benefit by the stock plan approach?

A statement of California's position regarding the use of stock plans is:

    Because of the huge school building program in California, the Legislature has studied various possible economies in construction. The idea of stock plans has been extensively explored and the preponderance of available facts and opinions has prompted us to reject stock plan proposals as neither sound nor economical (p. 7).

COLORADO

Colorado uses stock plans for 24 ft x 60 ft--2 classroom portable-type buildings only.

INDIANA

The Indiana State Legislature provided legislation for the development of stock plans for elementary schools in 1951. State funds were not provided to implement this provision; consequently, the statute was repealed in 1972.

MAINE

The state of Maine used stock plans during 1950-1960 for elementary schools and some high schools. A total of 55 schools were constructed during this 10+ year period. A total of 49 elementary schools with enrollment of 19 to 140 students; 3 middle schools with enrollment of 85 to 190 students; and 3 high schools with enrollment of 120 to 360 students were constructed during this period. Based on their experience, disadvantages outweighed advantages (even for these extremely small schools) and the use of stock plans did not produce satisfactory results. Utilization of stock plans would not be recommended,

MARYLAND

The issue of stock plans, proto-type plans, and repeat plans was considered when Maryland's Governor appointed a task force on school construction in 1985. The conclusion reached by the task force was:

Stock plans should not be developed for use in Maryland public schools, and prototype or repeat plans can be developed and used by a local board of education, but the decision should be made after a careful review and analysis" has been conducted.

NEW YORK

In the early 1960s, the New York legislature passed a law whereby the State Architect's Office, in consultation with the State Education Department, was authorized to have 18 separate plans prepared. Private architects were commissioned for the design and production of working drawing: and specifications. However, only nine sets of plans were developed. Plans incorporated then current desirable education spaces as well as fallout shelters. Finishes, in general, were good and the plans did not result in "cheap" buildings.

Approximately $650,000 (of the $1,000,000) appropriated) was expended for the nine plans developed. After the plans became available in 1963, there were only two schools built. One was a senior high school and the other was a junior high school. The high school plan was used by a district where a bond referenda for a new school had been defeated a number of times. Although the finished building 1s an attractive building, a total of 40 addenda drawings were developed as a result of departures from the original standard plan. During construction, there were also 58 change orders. The second (junior high) school was built with little deviation from the plans and specifications. These plans have not been used by any other systems although many individual sets of plans were sent out to districts which only wished to compare the plans with those prepared by their own architects.

New York reported that they had encountered the following problems:

  1. The question or "responsibility" for any changes that might be necessary or for the selection of "equal" materials and equipment. Architects felt that it would be unwise for them as adapting architects to use plans sealed and signed by the State Architect.

  2. A major problem was the updating of the plans.

  3. Construction costs proved to be about the same as for custom designed buildings and the time of construction was not reduced.

  4. Adaptation of plans to meet size and programmatic requirements proved to be extremely difficult.

Based on articles published in the New York Times and The New Yorker, New York City is currently experimenting with "component" designs for schools. Proto-type components were developed by private architectural firms specifically for the New York City Projects. Both of these articles are very positive; however, there appears to be an underlying "wait and see" tone.

NORTH CAROLINA

North Carolina Indicated that they had not used stock plans; however, the issue had been discussed and rejected several times in the past for the following reasons:

  1. When local school systems have developed proto-type plans, they have rarely repeated the plan more than three to four times. Cost savings for proto-type plans have been minimal.

  2. If stock plans are developed at the state level, a large staff of architects and engineers would be required to update and modify plans to keep them current and usable by school systems.

  3. Development and use of stock plans would place the state in a competitive position with private architectural and engineering firms. This would have a revere negative impact on the private design sector.

  4. The major portion of the school construction budget in North Carolina is for renovation and additions to existing schools. Stock plans would not be ap­plicable for these activities.

PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania indicated that stock plans were never used; however, the following comments were included with their response to the questionnaire:

  1. An unlimited number or designs might be necessary for various sizes of-schools and grade organizations as well as site variations that have a significant influence on design.

  2. Program variations from one system to another would require different space sizes, equipments, etc.

  3. Staff with the expertise and sufficient staff hours delegated to keep the plans, specifications, and material; lists updated would be required.

  4. Standard (or stock) plans would not apply for addition and alteration projects that constitute a substantial percentage of Pennsylvania's projects.

SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina has pursued the idea of using stock plans but has rejected the idea for the following reasons cited in their comments:

  1. Each school needs to be designed to the needs, desires, and financial capability of those for which the school is designed. Differences in the financial abilities of the various districts in itself would eliminate the feasibility of stock plans. The only way stock plans would work from this point of view, is for the state to provide facilities on a state-wide basis regardless of the financial ability of the district.

  2. Standard plans eliminate the wide competition among the various types of construction and materials used in school buildings, and therefore the drive of open competition to produce the most cost-effective construction for the schools within the state would be reduced. Under the present system, the competition is there even before the individual design is begun.

  3. Schools are constructed with tax derived funds and all segments of the building industry provide these taxes and each segment should have its chance to participate in accordance with its competitive edge. To eliminate, as an example, the brick manufacturer or the steel manufacturer in an individual school is one thing, but to eliminate any component on a statewide basis, is in my mind unthinkable in the open capitalistic system that we have in the United States.

  4. Code requirements change yearly and any stock plan soon becomes obsolete even with yearly updating. The time element would make stock plans unworkable. Each year Code changes come into effect in April or May which would put plan development or changes into the next year and legislative approval, possibly into the following year. This process would probably produce plans that were obsolete even before construction is started.

  5. Stock plans do not eliminate the necessity for employing architects and engineers to adapt the stock plan to a new site with different soil conditions, topography, and location in relationship to all incoming utilities and to structural changes for snow, water, wind, and soil. An architect is needed to supervise construction, check payments to the contractor, advise the owner on construction and design problems, check drawings against performance, and approve samples of materials. Likewise, someone needs to make sure the stock plan conforms to local fire health, and sanitation laws.

  6. The liability question all but eliminates any money saving of architect's fee. Is the state willing to assume the liabilities of an "inhouse" produced plan or absolve the architect of his liabilities in a contract-produced set of stock plans?

South Carolina School Facilities Planning and Construction Guide states:

  • The idea of so-called stock plans for school use on a statewide level has been considered at one time or another in South Carolina and in many other states. However, the general concensus is that it is a counterproductive process and saves little if any public funds. There are many factors involved which space here does not permit a detailed discussion of, but it is sufficient to say that the stock plan procedure was tried as far back as the 1940's and 1950's by at least .5 states but was subsequently aban­doned by all. Today, to knowledge, no state uses stock plans except for temporary buildings.

  • On an individual district basis, there have been successful cases where a particular school has been duplicated either as part of a single building program, or a second school built within a fairly short time span after the original. In these cases, the enrollments were the same, the type sites were generally similar, and the educational concepts and needs were the same.

However, even in duplicating a single building, the belief that most of the architect's fee will be saved on the second building is incorrect.... (p. 1-8).

VIRGINIA

Virginia used stock plans from the late 1920s to the late 1930s; however, neither the number of schools constructed nor the size and type of schools con­structed were provided. Recommendations in the comments section of the survey instrument stated:

We recommend "program generated" plans as the most satisfactory and economical designs. The rapidly changing program requirements and options that are occurring in public education require facilities that are designed around the program to be used and promoted by the teaching staff.

ALL OTHER STATES RESPONDING TO THE SURVEY

All other states responding to the survey indicated that they had not used standard or stock plans. These states did not provide additional information or comments substantially different than those reported by other states and reported previously in this summary.

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF STOCK PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SCHOOLS

Based on the research and documentation on of past experience regarding the use of standard or stock plans and specifications for construction of new public school facilities, the feasibility of using this approach as a means of reducing costs or shortening the time required for design and construction of new schools does not appear to be practical nor economical over a period or time. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposal to develop and use standard (or stock) plans and specifications for new school construction be rejected.