Volume 1 - June Final

Master Plan Support Project
June 2015 | Volumes 1-3
FINAL REPORT SUBMISSION TO
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

PREFACE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND / PURPOSE
METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.4.1 WFCI Scoring Methodology and Summary Findings
1.4.2 Educational Adequacy Methodology and Summary Findings
1.4.3 Utilization Methodology and Summary Findings
1.4.4 Project Deﬁnitions and Costs - Methodology
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Table of Contents
Volume No. 1

PLANNING AREA REVIEW GUIDE
MAPS
PLANNING AREA REVIEWS
APPENDICES
2.0
3.1
2.1
3.2
Table of Contents
Volume No. 2
Volume No. 3

NO. 1VOLUME
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT REPORT

SECTION 1.1 - PREFACE
J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 1 . 1
PREFACE
1.1

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT
B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E . E M P OW E R . A D V A N C E .1 . 1 . 4
PREFACE
In October 2014 Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) engaged Brailsford & Dunlavey, Inc.
(B&D) along with Perkins Eastman Architects (PEA) and other subconsultants (together, the project team)
to provide comprehensive planning services in support of its ongoing facility master planning efforts. This
project, referred to as the Master Plan Support Project (MPSP), included assessments of school utilization
and educational adequacy, the development of metrics to weight existing facility condition data, and the
creation of a comprehensive analytical model that integrates the three aforementioned factors to generate
capital improvement project (CIP) and modernization project sequencing recommendations.
In response to requirements from the state of Maryland, the project team provided a draft utilization report
in December 2014, the results of which are updated and finalized herein. In addition, this final report
includes recommendations related to capital projects, budgeting, sequencing, boundary changes, school
closures, and other master planning actions. These recommendations do not represent the plans or
proposals of the chief executive officer (CEO) of PGCPS, but rather recommendations that the project team
is making based on the results of its work.
This MPSP Final report is comprise of three volumes. Volume One contains the comprehensive final report
and recommendations, Volume Two the detailed work plans for forty planning areas, and Volume Three
consists of the maps and appendices.
B&D would like to thank the following PGCPS individuals who provided insight and comments throughout
the process:
 Sarah Woodhead, Director of Capital Programs
 Rupert McCave, CIP Officer - Department of Capital Programs
 Elizabeth Chaisson, Facilities Planner - Department of Capital Programs
 Johndel Jones-Brown, Director of Pupil Accounting & School Boundaries
 Rhianna McCarter, Department of Pupil Accounting & School Boundaries
 Sameano Porchea, Office of Pupil Accouting & School Boundaries
 Deanna Newman, independent planning consultant to PGCPS - Public Pathways, LLC
The core project team that completed this project included Brailsford & Dunlavey, Perkins Eastman
Architects and Applied Management Engineering. The team was comprised of the following individuals:
 Jay Brinson, Regional Vice President, Brailsford & Dunlavey
 Chris Dunlavey, President, Brailsford & Dunlavey
 Douglas Kincaid, President, AME
 Erika Lehman, Senior Associate, Perkins Eastman Architects

SECTION 1.1 - PREFACE
J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 1 . 3
 Sean O’Donnell, Principal, Perkins Eastman Architects
 Beth Penfield, Senior Project Manager, Brailsford & Dunlavey
 Tyler Specht, Project Analyst, Brailsford & Dunlavey
Additional subconsultants who supported the project were:
 Peter Forella, Project Manager, Forella Group – cost estimating
 Peter Furst, Planner, Urbanomics – GIS mapping
 Tina Lund, Principal, Urbanomics - GIS mapping
 William Richardson, Program Manager, Educational Systems Planning – technology
consulting
As with any master planning process, data and knowledge is limited and assumptions are made as to
probable future conditions. For the MPSP this includes but not limited to the physical condition of buildings,
building current and desired future functional use, applicable local, state, and federal guidelines and
standards, and projected enrollment figures. As such:
1. The analyses, recommendations, observations, and conclusions contained in this study
represent the professional opinions of the B&D project team with such opinions based
on:
a. Original research conducted using primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
b. Information provided by Client, and
c. The project team’s professional experience
2. This study has been prepared for Client’s internal decision making purposes only and is valid
only for the sole and specific purpose stated herein as of the date of this report; it may not be
used for any other purpose or by any other party for any purpose.
3. This study is intended to be used in whole and not in parts. Separation of any part from the
whole may skew information or interpretation and is, therefore, not allowed.
4. The project team relied extensively on information provided by Client. B&D accepted this
information as accurate and performed no independent verification to confirm validity.
Examples include but are not limited to:
a. In many cases engineering judgment was used to determine what deficiencies might be
impacted by project work implemented since the 2012 Parson’s FCI Report based upon
project scope descriptions provided by PGCPS and the accuracy of those adjustments

B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E . E M P OW E R . A D V A N C E .1 . 1 . 4
are professional opinions based solely upon the facility condition data provided by
PGCPS.
b. The calculation of facility utilization relied upon existing floor plans provided by PGCPS.
These floor plans were assumed to be scaleable and proportionally accurate.
5. The project team performed its work using industry and public information that is deemed
reliable, but whose accuracy cannot be guaranteed. B&D makes no recommendation and
provides no warranty as to such information’s accuracy or completeness. Examples include
but are not limited to:
a. Educational Adequacy assessments were conducted based upon visual observations
and resulted in general characterizations made by project staff utilizing the common
survey tool developed specifically for this project. These observations do not reflect
detailed engineering analysis, testing, or inspections.
6. B&D makes no assurance and provides no guarantee that results identified in this study will
be achieved. Economic and market conditions, management action or inaction, and
implementation timing, as well as other important circumstances, often do not occur as
planned and such deviations can be material.
7. The success of the project, including achieving any financial goals presented herein, will
depend in large part on the operator’s competencies and performance, which B&D has no
control over. The project team has assumed that the operating management team will be
highly competent.
8. The project team expresses no opinion on legal or financial matters or any other specialized
knowledge beyond the specific analyses conducted for this report.
9. B&D’s obligations to Client for this study are solely corporate and no B&D owner, officer,
director, employee, agent, contractor, or controlling person shall be subject to any personal
liability whatsoever to any person nor will any such claim be asserted by or on behalf of any
other party or person relying on this report.

SECTION 1.2 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 2 . 1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
 Overview
 Project Background
 Methodology and Findings
 Synthesis and Recommendations
 Next Steps
1.2

B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E . E M P O W E R . A D V A N C E .1 . 2 . 2
OVERVIEW
The Master Plan Support Project (MPSP) was established to provide Prince George’s County Public
Schools (PGCPS) with the documentation and recommendations needed to update the FY2016
Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP) with a comprehensive long-range plan for addressing its
extensive backlog of school facility needs. To do this, PGCPS engaged Brailsford and Dunlavey, Inc. (B&D)
along with Perkins Eastman Architects (PEA) and other subconsultants (together, the project team). The
MPSP project team enhanced existing facility condition data by creating a weighted facility condition index
(WFCI) to prioritize specific building system deficiencies and collected facility functionality data related to
educational adequacy and school utilization rates. Ultimately, the MPSP final report synthesizes the
prioritized school construction and renovation projects, school condition and functionality data, and PGCPS’
mission-based goals and objectives into an objective, comprehensive, and achievable plan.
Synthesizing the massive quantity of information collected for this project required the project team to apply
a unique strategy that organized the school district into 40 distinct planning areas. This approach allowed
the team to address local facility needs while concurrently developing a prioritized program implementation
sequence that addressed the overall needs of the district’s large and diverse residents. The plan identifies
and addresses several significant issues, including:
 Significant overutilization of schools in the northern portions of the county, particularly at the middle
and high school levels;
 Significant underutilization of schools in the central and southern portions of the county, particularly
at the elementary school levels; and
 Widespread facility condition and functionality concerns, especially in middle and elementary
schools in the central and southern portions of the county.
Upon completing its analyses, the project team recommends the initiation of a comprehensive 20-year,
$8.5 billion modernization program that includes renovating or replacing 132 existing schools, building eight
new schools, adjusting multiple school boundaries, and closing or consolidating 29 schools. The
recommended program balances school utilization, addresses all facility condition issues, minimizes school
district operating costs, and provides PGCPS with facilities that will support student achievement for many
years to come.
The recommendations outlined in the plan will more more than triple PGCPS’ current annual capital
expenditures. Maintaining the status quo will force PGCPS to defer some required work for years or make
significant reductions in scope, which only delays the inevitable need, assures that repairs will be more
expensive, and causes the untenable abandonment of its mission-based principles. PGCPS and the county
have many difficult decisions to make and much is unknown about public willingness to embrace such an
aggressive course of action. However, the level of need in the county has reached a critical point and it is
clear to the project team that PGCPS should begin working immediately on next steps to implement the
MPSP recommendations.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 2 . 3
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Maintaining an inventory of more than 200 facilities over almost 500 square miles of land in neighborhoods
that include urban core areas, new suburban developments, and older rural communities is a significant
challenge for Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS). With the majority of buildings being over
40-years old and not modernized to the latest standards, PGCPS must allocate the majority of its limited
annual capital project funding to projects that address deficiencies in aging facilities. This approach forces
PGCPS to be reactive to critical issues, which are often unpredictable, and prevents the school district from
implementing a proactive approach that focuses on creating schools for the future.
Best practices in school maintenance support the comprehensive modernization of school buildings every
35-40 years. Although consistent, routine, and regular maintenance of building systems can extend a
building’s life span, most major systems reach the end of their useful lives and fail or become inefficient
after 30 to 35 years. Additionally, changes in teaching styles and content, new technologies, and, for many
schools, multiple unrelated additions, require redesign and upgrading of the teaching and learning spaces.
Modernizing to ‘like new’ standards requires replacing all major systems, rightsizing and equipping all
classrooms and core spaces, installing state-of–the-art technology, and improving site conditions.
The PGCPS Department of Capital Programs creates, and updates annually, an Educational Facilities
Master Plan (EFMP), which is the planning tool used to establish program needs and priorities. The EFMP
serves as the basis for prioritizing projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Each year the
PGCPS Capital Programs staff submits the EFMP, an annual CIP, and a six-year CIP to be reviewed and
approved by the local board of education.
The facility evaluations and associated analysis conducted by the project team for the MPSP provided the
objective data needed to determine individual project needs while PGCPS goals and initiatives provided
the foundation for the development of comprehensive of planning strategies. Application of the planning
strategies allowed the project team to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations designed to best
align future school facilities with PGCPS’ mission. PGCPS must take these recommendations and
determine how best to integrate them into its long-term capital planning program.

METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
FACILITY CONDITIONS
In 2012, a Parsons Engineering report stated that the total cost of repairs for PGCPS’ outstanding building
deficiencies was $2.13 billion. The Parson’s assessment reported these repair needs in the form of a
Facility Condition Index (FCI) based upon the following formula:
PGCPS recognized that the FCI quantifies deficiencies by the cost to replace or correct them without
considering that some deficiencies are more difficult to correct or have a greater impact on the school’s
learning environment. To correct for this concern, PGCPS requested that the project team use the Parson’s
data to develop and vet a weighted FCI (WFCI) that considers health and safety issues, the degree to which
corrections are readily achievable in isolation (i.e. not in modernization or replacement), and other important
factors.
Weighting Methodology
The project team analyzed attributes of the FCI data collected by Parsons to determine how they could be
used in the WFCI process. It was determined that two attributes from the data, deficiency category and
priority were reflective of criticality and appropriate for weighting the FCI. Rating characteristics were also
developed by analyzing the impact on learning and the difficulty of repair/replacement of specific building
elements based on their Uniformat Code1
. Using a scale of one-10, ratings were assigned to each
Uniformat code category based upon its specific characteristics related to the four attribute categories:
 Deficiency Category
 Priority
 Impact on Learning
 Difficulty of Repair/Replacement
The difficulty of repair attribute was weighted the highest because of the extensive disruption to school
operations caused by correcting the associated deficiencies. The impact on learning attribute was also
strongly weighted because of the contribution to educational outcome. The other two attributes were
weighted much lower because there is not a normal distribution of the data associated with these attributes,
since roughly 90 percent of the FCI data is clustered into two subcategories.
1
The code, developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), is a standard for classification of building
elements and related site work, and provides a hierarchy of organizing data in a building at various levels of detail.
Current Cost of Repairs
Replacement Value
FCI =

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 2 . 5
All schools’ WFCI scores were ranked from one to 159, with one having the highest score of all schools
and 159 having the lowest. Instead of ranking or prioritizing the distribution of all schools one-by-one or on
a scale of one to 100, the entire portfolio of schools was prioritized into 25 separate groupings to align the
results with the priority scores developed for educational adequacy. The final WFCI priority scores range
from one to 25 with lower scores being indicative of worse facility conditions.
Summary of Findings
The weighting methodology described above produced the following conclusions:
1. Weighting the 2012 FCI data had a significant impact on the relative ranking of schools based on
facility conditions, causing 92% of schools to move at least one spot in the rankings and 17% to
move 10 or more places. These moves indicate that the weighting process was effective in
differentiating schools based on their unique system deficiency profiles.
2. On average, regional schools have the highest WFCI scores, followed closely by schools in the
Southern and Central Regions. Northern schools, on average, have the lowest WFCI scores.
3. All regional schools, regardless of type, in addition to middle schools in the Southern and Central
Regions, have the highest average WFCI scores, indicating higher overall levels of facility condition
needs.
4. Concentrations of deficiencies in high priority systems are linked to higher WFCI scores and several
school types have concentrations of deficiencies in systems that are difficult to repair. These
FIGURE 1.2.1: Average WFCI scores by region and school type

findings have significant implications on the types of projects that must be undertaken to correct
the problems.
EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY
An educational adequacy assessment is the evaluation of a school facility’s ability to support defined
standards as outlined in the district’s educational specifications. The assessment details the degree to
which a school facility can provide and support educational functions that meet the district’s mission, goals,
and standards for learning environments. It identifies local needs and develops a gap analysis that
compares existing facility conditions to the ideal standards and provides a score for each component. These
scores informed one part of the methodology used by the project team to make modernization
recommendations. The overall educational adequacy score is comprised of three components: the
campus, the individual, and the space adequacy scores.
Campus Assessment
The campus assessment is an evaluation of the entire school building and site based on the requirements
outlined in the educational specifications. Thirty-five (35) factors at each school were evaluated within the
following six categories for this assessment:
1. Site circulation and accessibility
2. Exterior spaces
3. Building configuration
4. Corridor and common space configuration
5. Technology and supporting infrastructure
6. Safety and security
Individual Spaces Assessment
The individual space assessment evaluates similar characteristics as the campus assessment, but at an
individual space level. The individual space assessment questions are the same for primary and secondary
schools; however, the space type classifications vary between the primary and secondary schools.
Nineteen (19) factors were evaluated within the following six subcategories for all capacity classrooms,
specialty spaces, and shared spaces:
Internal organization and ancillary spaces
1. Furnishings
2. Lighting quality
3. Acoustics

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 2 . 7
FIGURE 1.2.4: Leveling Factor
4. Air quality
5. Room technology and supporting infrastructure
Space Adequacy
The space adequacy assessment compares the number of learning spaces and total square footage of
such spaces to the requirements set in the district’s education specifications (Ed Specs), and is expressed
as a percentage of space compliant out of the total space required. Space adequacy is measured in three
categories: capacity-driving spaces, specialty spaces, and shared spaces. Space adequacy illustrates if a
school has too many or too few classrooms, and indicates if those spaces are too small or large.
Scoring and Prioritization
Campus and individual space assessments evaluate the compliance of existing spaces to the educational
specifications. The adequacy score is calculated as a percent compliant out of a total possible score by
subsection. The following figures indicate the rating categories applied to the scores from each
assessment:
An additional step was taken to establish a prioritization of the subcomponents. For example, a deficiency
in lighting quality may have greater importance than a deficiency in air quality. To establish priority scores
for each of the three educational adequacy components, the project team applied a leveling factor to the
rating categories (excellent to deficient). Five leveling factors were developed in close consultation with
PGCPS leadership to ensure the priorities were closely aligned with the district’s goals and objectives.
Priority scores between one and 25 were developed for each assessment subcategory by combining the
leveling factor with the rating category shown below:
Excellent 89.5 100%
Satisfactory 69.5 89.49%
Borderline 45.5 69.49%
Poor 29.5 49.49%
Deficient 0 29.49%
Campus and Individual Space Assessment Ratings
Rating Range A Range B Color Key
FIGURE 1.2.2: Campus and Individual Space
Assessment Rating Scale
Excellent 100 100%+
Satisfactory 90 99.90%
Borderline 80 89.90%
Poor 60 79.90%
Deficient 0 59.90%
Space Aadequacy Rating
Rating Range A Range B Color Key
FIGURE 1.2.3: Space Adequacy Rating Scale

The priority score for each educational adequacy component (campus assessment, individual spaces, and
space adequacy) is simply an average of its respective subcomponent priority scores. Similarly, the overall
educational adequacy priority score is simply an average of the priority scores for each of the three main
components.
Summary of Findings
The educational adequacy methodology described above produced the following conclusions:
1. Based on the established rating scale, the range of priority scores indicates that PGCPS schools,
on average, have borderline educational adequacy with widely varied results at the component
level from school to school.
2. Campus assessment priority scores revealed that site circulation and accessibility scores were
most frequently the lowest, with several school types averaging poor or nearly poor, particularly in
Southern Region schools. Building configuration scores were also very low, with poor ratings
concentrated in secondary schools across the county.
3. Individual space priority scores revealed that schools districtwide tend to have issues with
furnishings, technology, and classroom air quality.
4. Of the three educational adequacy component scores, space adequacy had the widest range of
results and frequently had a more significant impact on overall educational adequacy scores at the
individual school level than did the other two components.
SCHOOL UTILIZATION
Methodology
The project team started its work in October 2014 by gathering floor plans and school capacity and
enrollment data for all buildings. The team reviewed existing State-rated Capacity (SRC) data tables and
used floor plans provided by the district or, where floor plans were not available, acquired egress plans to
use as a template. As a part of the existing data review, the team established whether a school was based
on a prototype and also classified it by type (elementary, middle, high, pre-K-8 or regional).
Over the course of five weeks, the project team surveyed 193 schools, evaluated the current use of each,
and identified room names, numbers, teacher’s names, and other pertinent data. The team checked the
existing conditions against the existing floor plans and noted where there were significant discrepancies.
The updated information was uploaded into Building Information Modeling (BIM) software so the team could

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 2 . 9
document each specific area within every building and assign room labels and other functional attributes
for analytical purposes.
The project team built an Excel model where the BIM information, enrollment projection data, and State of
Maryland school capacity calculation requirements2 were entered. Formulas to account for allowable
capacity adjustments were developed to address the appropriate allocation of specialty classrooms and
resource spaces. Once completed, the model created revised school capacities (SRCs) and updated
utilization rates for each school.
Summary of Findings
The school utilization methodology described above produced the following conclusions:
1. Utilization rates are highest in the Northern Region, followed by the Central and then Southern
Regions.
2. Utilization is in most critical condition in Northern Region middle schools and regional Early
Childhood Centers (ECCs) with projected average utilization rates of 132% and 147%,
respectively.
3. All school types are overutilized in the Northern Region and projected to be underutilized in the
Southern Region.
4. In the Central Region, elementary schools are underutilized, while middle and high schools are
projected to be within the targeted range.
5. Regional specialized education centers and alternative schools are all projected to be below
targeted utilization rates while regional specialty program schools are projected to be within the
targeted range.
6. Analysis of established State Rated Capacities (SRC) for each school resulted in minimal change
(less than 5%) across all school types and regions.
2 The State Interagency on School Construction’s (IAC) Appendix 102A was used as a guideline for
calculating SRC.

PROJECT DEFINITIONS AND COST ESTIMATING
The project team utilized the facility condition, educational adequacy, and school utilization data to define
the baseline project needs at each facility and organize schools into project groupings based on similar
characteristics.
Upon analyzing the type of work needed across the district, the project team developed four major project
definition categories and applied the appropriate one to each school based on its needs. The project team
was careful to align the scopes within these categories with existing standards used by the state of Maryland
to establish funding eligibility. Summaries of the four baseline project types are:
Full Renovation or Replacement:
This project type includes a comprehensive upgrade to, or replacement of, all building systems,
equipment, and furnishings in addition to comprehensive site work improvements and all work
required to address ADA and building code compliance. In order to complete the extent of work
required, PGCPS may elect to renovate the building in place or replace it with a new facility3
.
Limited Renovation:
This project type includes any school that requires the replacement of five or more building systems
and minor reconfigurations to only a small portion of the building. In many cases limited renovations
involve extensive work but are distinguished from a full renovation because the majority of interior
walls remain in original locations and improvements to exterior building systems such as roof,
window, and exterior walls are not required.
System Replacement:
This project type includes any school that requires the replacement of one or more systems but
does not meet the criteria for a limited renovation. As noted in the educational adequacy findings,
fixed furnishings and equipment were consistently the biggest problem across all school types and,
therefore, all system replacement projects include upgrades to classroom fittings (casework,
marker boards, tack boards, etc.), AV, and technology.
Other:
3 A comprehensive feasibility study should be undertaken by PGCPS prior to initiating work to determine the most
effective solution.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 2 . 11
This category is for projects that do not fit into one of the other three project types. In most cases,
newer schools in need of an addition rather than a renovation are in this category, as are buildings
slated for demolition.
A professional estimator then developed detailed cost estimates for all projects. Estimates included total
costs reflected in 2015 dollars. The estimator provided detailed cost sheets for 107 schools, which were
used to determine project costs for the remaining schools and for any subsequent changes to the baseline
project types.
The baseline projects were developed to quantify the work needed at each school to bring it into alignment
with the board-approved educational specifications, address identified facility condition deficiencies, and
provide adequate space to accommodate FY2020 projected enrollment. The baseline projects were
developed without consideration of the impact of a single project on its neighboring schools or the affect
that other master planning actions, such as boundary changes, may have on the school’s project needs.
That next step is discussed in the following section.
SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In collaboration with PGCPS, the project team synthesized facility condition, educational adequacy, and
utilization findings into a comprehensive school facility modernization program designed to support and
advance the school district’s educational mission. The planning process began with the detailed review of
existing district goals, standards, and guidelines. The project team’s understanding of this information was
then refined through strategic visioning and engagement sessions with PGCPS representatives,
stakeholders, and community members.
The result of these meetings was the creation of mission-based principles and logistical considerations that
were used to guide the development of specific planning strategies. These strategies were generated to
develop comprehensive capital project recommendations and master planning actions that are grounded
in site-based data and are aligned with the long-term strategic goals and vision of PGCPS.
PGCPS GOALS, STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES
The foundation of the MPSP planning strategies is existing PGCPS goals, standards, and guidelines
covering topics such as school size considerations, academic requirements, and other facility-related
considerations such as school utilization standards. This information provides the basis for the review and
analysis of facility needs and formulation of project recommendations and planning strategies. These goals,
standards, and guidelines are described in formalized documents that were refined and clarified for the
project team through strategic visioning and engagement sessions with PGCPS stakeholders. Following
is a summary of the documents and processes utilized to clarify the goals and standards.

FY2015 Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP): This document was developed to prioritize
projects for the 2016-2021 (six-year) Capital Improvement Plan. The plan calls for PGCPS to
commit to a strategic vision for creating a more efficient and effective system for consolidating,
closing, modernizing, renovating, constructing, and maintaining facilities. Core components of the
EFMP include developing more effective and efficient school sizes, recommended grade
configuration changes, and school utilization policies.
Educational Programming Initiatives: PGCPS has established goals related to secondary school
reform, special education inclusion, and other neighborhood and regional specialty programs. Most
of the reform initiatives are accounted for in the board-approved educational specifications that
were used for the educational adequacy assessments. For the others, PGCPS provided the MPSP
team with supporting documentation to aid in the planning process.
Strategic Visioning Session: The project team facilitated a strategic visioning session with PGCPS
leadership that covered topics related to educational adequacy, space priorities, community needs,
equity of investments, and school district operations.
Community Engagement Sessions: The project team held three community meetings to explain
the purpose of the MPSP and present findings based upon initial assessments. Meeting
participants were engaged in roundtable discussions and encouraged to provide feedback related
to the MPSP.
Planning Workshops: The project team and PGCPS representatives engaged in four planning
workshops to review findings, consider potential project impacts, evaluate alternative scenarios,
and clarify planning strategies in proactive and iterative ways.
PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIES
PGCPS goals, standards, and guidelines provided the project team with direct guidance on how facility
needs should be evaluated based upon size, capacity and utilization, grade configurations, program
offerings, adequacy of spaces, and square footage needs. Planning strategies developed for the MPSP
were derived from two key components: a set of mission-based principles and a list of logistical
considerations. The mission-based principles serve as guidelines for implementation of the district’s long-
term vision and are one of the critical outcomes from the planning workshops. The logistical considerations
were used to inform the team’s methodology for reviewing site-based needs and formulating project
recommendations and priorities that meet the district’s immediate and long-term goals.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 2 . 13
Mission-based Principles: The MPSP recommendations must:
 Support student achievement and PGCPS’s mission.
 Minimize operating and capital costs.
 Focus on at-risk facilities.
 Consider the equitable distribution of project funds.
 Maintain neighborhood schools.
 Complete the program in 15-20 years.
Logistical Considerations: The MPSP recommendations must consider:
 The impact to the immediate community during construction.
 Land acquisition timelines.
 The sequencing and selection of closures and consolidations.
 Construction market and school district implementation capacity.
 Annual funding constraints and means to maximize state funding eligibility.
Core Planning Strategies
To address the varying, and often competing, needs of such a large school district, the project team utilized
five core planning strategies that were developed to accommodate the mission-based principles and
logistical considerations. The five strategies are:
1. Use planning areas to:
o Review logistical impacts and establish local sequencing;
o Optimize use of school facilities;
o Evaluate geographic distribution;
o Distribute Specialized Services and Specialty Programs; and
o Evaluate transportation impacts.
2. Focus investments on facilities over 15 years old.
3. Use objective data and tools to support recommendations and sequencing within planning areas.
4. Modernize receiving schools prior to sending students from over-enrolled schools or schools to be
closed.
5. Align project recommendation categories with state requirements.
Final Program Sequencing and Delivery Strategy
The team developed a recommended sequencing strategy for all projects needed to achieve each planning
area’s program goals. These strategies were often driven by urgent existing conditions, such as severe
overutilization, severe underutilization, or significantly poor physical condition. The sequencing

recommendations and the logic that supports them are described in the planning area reports in Volume
Two of this document. Once the planning area sequencing schedules were completed, the team then
developed an overall prioritization strategy that organized planning areas into the following priority groups:
Priority 1: Areas with critical systems failures.
Priority 2: Areas that are critically utilized.
Priority 3: Areas with one or more severely overutilized schools where construction is the required
solution.
Priority 4: Areas with one or more severely overutilized schools where master planning action could
be an alternative to a capital investment.
Priority 5: Areas with overall critical WFCI scores.
Priority 6: Areas with one or more schools with a severe WFCI score.
Priority 7: Balance of planning areas.
AGGREGATE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
After applying the planning and prioritization strategies, the project team developed a detailed 20-year, $8.5
billion modernization program that addresses all deferred capital improvements and ensures all schools
are educationally appropriate per the latest standards and guidelines. The recommended modernization
program includes 140 capital projects sequenced over twenty fiscal years starting in 2017 and requires on
average $425 million annually over the life of the program. This program will provide an optimized portfolio
with balanced utilization rates achieved via multiple boundary realignments and specific school closure
recommendations.
The $8.5 billion program costs are comprised of $5.5 billion in direct project costs, $2.3 billion in escalation
costs, and $700 million in other program costs. The distribution of the 140 projects by project type, along
with their associated costs in 2015 dollars is provided in Figure 1.2.5 below. As shown, over 80% of the

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 2 . 15
projects are full or limited renovations, but the program also recommends the construction of eight new
schools and the closure of 29 existing facilities.
The capital program recommendations are broken down into three CIP cycles as show in Figure 1.2.6
below. The majority of overutilization issues are addressed by the end of cycle one and all but two of the
40 planning areas have at least one project started by 2024.
The distribution of projects across the Northern, Central and Southern Regions is detailed in Figure 1.2.7
below. The larger quantity of projects in the Northern Region is necessitated by the significant
Full Renovation or Replacement $3.4 billion 77
Limited Renovation $1.2 billion 39
System Replacement $178 million 11
Other $82 million 5
New School $583 million 8
Total: $5.5 billion 140
*Costs do not include annual escalation
**Categories include costs for additions where recommended
Program Recommendations
Category of Project** Project Costs* Project Counts
Duration
Cycle Fiscal Years Started Completed
Value of
Projects
Started*
Ave. Total
Cost per
FY
Total Costs
Occuring**
Cycle 1
(year 1 - year 6)
2017 - 2022 45 27 $2.1 billion $307 million $2 billion
Cycle 2
(year 7 - year 12)
2023 - 2028 64 56 $2.3 billion $470 million $3.1 billion
Cycle 3
(year 13 - year 20)
2029 - 2036 31 58 $1.1 billion $392 million $3.4 billion
140 141 $5.5 billion $8.5 billion
*Reflects the total value of projects started within this cycle according to their 2015 un-escalated project costs.
**Costs reflect project costs per fiscal year, escalated accordingly, as well as recommended other program costs.
Projects Program Costs
FIGURE 1.2.5: Modernization Program Project Categories and Distribution
FIGURE 1.2.6 Program Information by CIP Cycle

overutilization issues that require the implementation of construction projects. The greater quantity of
underutilized schools in the Central and Southern Regions allowed the project team to frequently
recommend alternatives to construction such as boundary adjustments or closures.
PROGRAM OUTCOMES
Program Outcomes
The outcomes of this modernization program align with the strategic goals and mission of PGCPS by
correcting all deferred capital improvements and ensuring all schools are educationally appropriate per the
latest standards. The modernization program will optimize the district’s portfolio by balancing utilization
rates while minimizing operating costs, maintaining neighborhood schools, and improving access to
specialty academic and special needs programs for students.
The MPSP puts forward aggressive recommendations that more than triple the current annual capital
expenditures. The plan acknowledges that maintaining the status quo does not align with the achievement
of the principles PGCPS described throughout this project. The maintenance of current funding levels will
force PGCPS to defer some required work for years, which only ensures that repairs will be more expensive,
or reduce scopes significantly, which will cause untenable compromises of mission-based principles.
In the end, the 20-year, $8.5 billion program is the most logical option to overcome utilization challenges,
address facility condition issues, minimize school district operating costs, and provide long-term support for
student achievement. The plan achieves all of the objectives as quickly and economical as practical.
PGCPS and the county have many difficult decisions to make and much is unknown about public
North 20 $1 billion 22 $876 million 15 $495 million 57 $2.4 billion
Central 12 $659 million 15 $514 million 7 $223 million 34 $1.4 billion
South 6 $275 million 16 $638 million 7 $246 million 29 $1.2 billion
Regional 7 $186 million 11 $304 million 2 $52 million 20 $0.5 billion
Total: 45 $2.1 billion 64 $2.3 billion 31 $1.0 billion 140 $5.5 B
Elementary 20 $564 million 40 $1 billion 20 $367 million 80 $1.9 billion
Middle 14 $932 million 5 $278 million 5 $261 million 24 $1.5 billion
High 4 $444 million 8 $718 million 4 $337 million 16 $1.5 billion
Regional 7 $186 million 11 $300 million 2 $52 million 20 $0.5 billion
Total: 45 $2.1 billion 64 $2.3 billion 31 $1.0 billion 140 $5.5 B
*Reflects the total value of projects started within this cycle according to their 2015 un-escalated project costs.
Count Value* Count Value*
Cycle 1
(2017 - 2022)
Cycle 2
(2023 - 2028)
Cycle 3
(2029 - 2036)
Program Total
Region Count Value* Count Value*
Value* Count Value*School Type Count Value* Count Value* Count
FIGURE 1.2.7: Cycle 1, 2, 3 Program Information Distributed by Region and School Type

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 2 . 17
willingness to embrace such an aggressive course of action. However, the level of need in the county has
reached a critical point and it is clear to the project team that PGCPS should begin working immediately on
next steps to implement the MPSP recommendations.
NEXT STEPS
Achievement of the goals identified for this project will require not only approval and advancement of the
overall plan and recommendations herein, but development of next steps to ensure that the
recommendations are pursued pragmatically and with mitigation of the many potential risks involved. The
seven initiatives outlined below, while possibly not comprehensive, should guide PGCPS as it continues
with the Master Plan Support Project.
1. Public Dissemination and Engagement: Present and explain the plan to the district’s residents;
incorporate their feedback.
2. Comprehensive Boundary Study: Conduct a detailed study of MPSP recommendations for
balancing school utilization to validate and finalize an implementation strategy.
3. Implementation Plan: Refine the plans for project definition, planning, and implementation within
the program.
4. Capital Plan: Refine the budgeting tools and assumptions necessary to fund capital expenditures
from a viable financing structure.
5. Individual Project Feasibility Studies: Conduct individualized project planning with detailed
consideration of site- and school-specific needs, design opportunities, and budget parameters.
6. School Closure(s) Process: Apply the defined public process for consideration and approval of
school closures to those schools recommended for closure in the plan.
7. Plan Updates and Refinement: Regularly update and refine the plan as feedback, new planning
information and strategic direction from PGCPS is received.

SECTION 1.3 – BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 3 . 1
BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE
 Introduction
 State Planning Requirements
 Recent Facility Planning History
 MPSP: Purpose, Goals, and Scope
1.3

B R A I L S F O R D & D U N L A V E Y I N S P I R E . E MP OW E R . A D V A N C E .1 . 3 . 2
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
INTRODUCTION
Maintaining an inventory of more than 200 facilities over almost 500 square miles of land in neighborhoods
that include urban core areas, new suburban developments, and older rural communities is a significant
challenge for Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS). With the majority of buildings being over
40-years old and not modernized to the latest standards, PGCPS must allocate the majority of its limited
annual capital project funding into projects that address deficiencies in aging facilities. This forces PGCPS
to be reactive to critical issues which are often unpredictable and prevents the school district from
implementing a proactive approach that focuses on creating schools for the future.
Best practices in school maintenance support the comprehensive modernization of school buildings every
35-40 years. Although consistent, routine, and regular maintenance of building systems can extend a
building’s life span, most major systems reach the end of their useful lives and fail or become inefficient
after 30 to 35 years. Additionally, changes in teaching styles and content, new technologies, and, for many
schools, multiple unrelated additions, require redesign and upgrading of the teaching and learning spaces.
Modernizing to ‘like new’ standards requires replacing all major systems, rightsizing and equipping all
classrooms and core spaces, installing state-of–the-art technology, and improving site conditions.
STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
As a part of the State of Maryland’s Public School Construction Program, the Interagency Committee on
School Construction (IAC), reviews projects and allocates state funding to support public school
construction in local districts. As a part of this larger program, PGCPS and other local school districts
annually submit required planning documents to the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) and the IAC.
The PGCPS Department of Capital Programs creates, and updates annually, an Educational Facilities
Master Plan (EFMP), which is the planning tool used to establish program needs and priorities. The EFMP
serves as the basis for prioritizing projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Each year the
PGCPS Capital Programs staff submits the EFMP, an annual CIP, and a six-year CIP to be reviewed and
approved by the local school board.
In the fall, the CIP is then submitted to the state IAC. After review and discussion with representatives from
each school district, the IAC staff recommends action on each project listed in the annual Capital
Improvement Program request to the Interagency Committee. In December, the committee holds a special
hearing to allow the school districts to appeal the IAC staff recommendations. The committee, after
reviewing the staff recommendations and the information presented at the hearing, forwards its
recommendations to the Board of Public Works. The Board of Public Works holds a public hearing in

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 3 . 3
January for school districts to appeal the recommendations of the Interagency Committee. Changes to the
Capital Improvement Program, as recommended by the committee, are generally approved by the Board
of Public Works in January. The board generally reconvenes to respond to appeals in April, after the state
legislature has approved the capital budget and the level of state funding for the following fiscal year, to
respond to appeals.
A compelling case for the need to modernize academic facilities is critical to moving forward with the
PGCPS academic strategic plan. The Master Plan Support Project and other planning efforts to date serve
to support these planning efforts.
RECENT FACILITY PLANNING HISTORY
PARSONS’ REPORT
In 2008, Parsons 3D/International (Parsons) conducted a General Facility Condition Assessment on all
district schools. The purpose of this assessment was to help PGCPS define capital renewal and deferred
maintenance funding requirements and this work involved gathering information such as make, model, and
installation dates of various building systems such as foundation, structural, roofing, and heating,
ventilation, and air condition (HVAC). The Parsons’ report and associated data was updated in 2012 and
at that time, identified over $2 billion in facility repairs at existing schools for these major building systems.
With a current average annual funding of $130 million, this $2 billion backlog of capital renewal and deferred
maintenance projects would not be cleared for over 20 years. Additionally, the project costs addressed in
the Parsons report do not address facility overutilization and mission and function based upgrades or
expansions.
EDUCATIONAL SPECIFICATIONS
In 2014, PGCPS began the development of local educational specifications (Ed Specs) for both primary
and secondary schools. The Ed Specs serve as the school facility standards and they were designed to
reflect space standards, spatial requirements, design philosophy, and to serve as the link between the
educational program and school facilities. In February 2015, the Ed Specs were formally approved,
allowing them to be used as benchmarks for the evaluation of existing facilities as well as informing future
project plans.
MASTER PLAN SUPPORT PROJECT
In 2014 it was determined that a Master Plan Support Project (MPSP) would be beneficial to assist the
PGCPS’s Capital Programs staff in reviewing needs and prioritizing projects with the goal of establishing a
strategic vision that creates an efficient and effective modernization program to address condition as well

as mission and function. The project team was engaged to provide services related to existing data review
and synthesis, new data collection and analysis, and the prioritization and sequencing of project
recommendations that include selective consolidations or closures, modernizations, minor renovations or
additions, and high quality maintenance to ensure exceptional learning environments for the district’s
children. As a result, the MPSP presented here recommends a comprehensive modernization program
based upon objective criteria and addressing PGCPS goals and objectives to for proactively improve its
schools to new standards. The MPSP is to be used by PGCPS to inform future state required formal
capital improvement plans and other local and state level planning documents.
MPSP: GOALS, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE
The Master Plan Support Project was established as a major planning study to evaluate existing data,
collect new data on current conditions, and synthesize this information into recommendations for the
development of a comprehensive program based on objective criteria.
PURPOSE AND GOALS
Overall, this data driven and goal oriented approach for the MPSP seeks to understand how PGCPS’s
existing facilities currently perform and what improvements need to be made across the school district
relative to mission, condition, and function.
Mission
To inform what data is collected and how it is analyzed and synthesized, it is important to understand the
strategic goals and objectives of the school district. In other words, understanding PGCPS’s targeted new
reality ensures data collected appropriately measure the gaps to achieving these goals and objectives. The
foundation for this is the board of education’s safe and supportive schools goal and the PGCPS Department
of Capital Programs’ mission to:
 Deliver educationally-appropriate and correctly-sized facilities that preserve fiscal
investments
 Provide sustainable, safe, and healthy environments conducive to teaching and learning
 Support major academic initiatives conducive to high student achievement:
o Expand language immersion programs
o Expand pre-kindergarten
o Implement career academies
o Integrate special education services
The MPSP carefully integrated these goals and objectives into all assessments and considered them
throughout the synthesis and recommendation development process. The project team worked

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 3 . 5
collaboratively with PGCPS staff and leadership as well as engaged with the community to ensure further
understanding of these goals and objectives. Ultimately, a set of mission-based principles, logistical
considerations, and planning strategies were developed and applied to inform the project sequencing and
program recommendations. MPSP will also be used to make decisions on school closures, boundary
changes, and other important planning recommendations.
Condition
Facility conditions are a significant factor in analyzing the capital program needs and addressing the overall
goal of safe and healthy environments conducive to teaching and learning. As such, they help inform what
solutions are needed to bring existing systems to modernized, “like new” conditions. To support this factor,
the project team reviewed and analyzed existing facility data from the 2012 Parsons Facility Report for the
purposes of developing a Weighted Facility Condition Index (WFCI) and informing project
recommendations and program priorities.
Function
In addition to deteriorating conditions, over time buildings begin to no longer meet functional standards due
to changes in teaching styles and content, new technologies, and design standards. Thus, understanding
how facilities support their intended functions is also a critical consideration when analyzing capital program
needs. To support this factor, buildings were evaluated for educational adequacy, capacity, and utilization.
Educational adequacy evaluates buildings based on their ability to meet PGCPS educational program
needs. The project team performed educational adequacy assessments on schools built before 1999 and
assessed room quantities, sizes and characteristics were evaluated against approved program specific
standards. Utilization specifically looks at existing space use and calculating State-Rated Capacity (SRC)
and comparing to projected enrollments.
SCOPE SUMMARY
The facility evaluations and associated analysis provided the objective data needed to determine individual
project needs while PGCPS goals and initiatives provided the foundation for the development of
comprehensive of planning strategies. Ultimately, the MPSP final report provides a process for prioritizing
school construction and renovation projects based upon the synthesis of the school condition and
functionality data collected with the mission-based objectives enunciated by PGCPS and its stakeholders.

SECTION 1.4 – METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 4 . 1
METHODOLOGY AND
FINDINGS
 Introduction
 1.4.1: Weighted Facility Condition Index Methodology and Findings
o Methodology
o Findings
 1.4.2: Educational Adequacy Methodology and Findings
o Methodology
o Findings
 1.4.3: Utilization
o Methodology
o Findings
 1.4.4: Project Definitions and Costs Methodology
1.4

INTRODUCTION
The project team was charged with the synthesis of existing data as well as collecting new data for the
purposes of developing options and provide input to the establishment of priorities for the improvement of
PGCPS school facilities. Overall, this data-driven and goal oriented approach seeks to understand how
PGCPS’s existing facilities currently perform and what improvements need to be made across the school
district relative to mission, condition, and function.
With these factors driving the approach, PGCPS school facilities were assessed specifically for these
categories of need and the associated data helped inform the development of project recommendation and
comprehensive program based on objective criteria. This section provides a detailed review of the project
team’s approach for this data collection process, review, and assessment. Specifically, it reviews the
methodology and findings for the Weighted Facility Condition Index, Educational Adequacy, and Utilization
components of the MPSP.
DATA ORGANIZATION
To understand broader, countywide trends the project team consistently reviewed data by two
characterizations: region and school type. These characterizations of data are repeated throughout the
report and often are used as a basis of comparison.
REGION
The project team divided the county into three regions based on the established geographic planning areas
from the June 2014 Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP). These designations are loosely geographic
in nature and are referred to as the Northern Region, Central Region, and Southern Region.
SCHOOL TYPE
The inventory of school facilities includes neighborhood and regional schools. Enrollment at neighborhood
schools is based upon established boundaries. The project team characterized these schools further into
elementary, middle, and high schools. Regional schools have specific enrollment criteria that draw from
larger county geographical regions, and these schools are grouped separately from neighborhood schools.
For the purposes of this report, the project team generally did not further distinguish regional schools by
grade level. Regional schools are often denoted with an asterisk (*) within data tables.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 4 . 3
METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND
PGCPS completed a condition assessment of schools in 2001. The condition assessment data was
captured in Parsons’ proprietary software system, eCOMET. In 2012, Parsons performed an update of the
data in eCOMET. These updates incorporate the results of PGCPS projects funded or completed between
2001 and 2013 that would have remedied some of the facility deficiencies identified in the system from the
2001 effort. The Parsons assessment calculated a Facility Condition Index (FCI) as:
Current Cost of Repairs
Replacement Value
The revised 2012 Parsons report calculated the total cost of PGCPS repairs at approximately $2.13 billion
and a replacement value at approximately $4.29 billion, for a system-wide average FCI of .50 – which is
more commonly reported as an FCI of 50.
PGCPS recognizes that the FCI quantifies deficiencies by the cost to replace or correct them without
considering some deficiencies are more difficult to correct, or have a greater impact on the school’s learning
environment. Therefore, PGCPS requested that the MPSP project team use the Parsons data to develop
and vet a Weighted FCI (WFCI) to consider health and safety, the degree to which corrections are readily
achievable in isolation (i.e. not in modernization or replacement), and other factors to be determined through
this assignment.
NORMALIZING THE DATA TO 2015
Projected facility system renewals identified in eCOMET for 2013-2015 were not originally included as
deficiencies exported by PGCPS to the project team and, therefore, did not impact reported FCI scores. It
was determined that these projected system renewals should be added to the export as deficiencies in
order to update the reported FCI scores to a baseline of 2015. It was also determined that any deficiencies
in the eCOMET export remediated by projects completed or funded in 2014-2015 were to be removed prior
to updating the FCI calculation.
PGCPS provided information on county- and state-funded projects for 2014-2015 that corrected some of
the existing deficiencies in eCOMET. The project team and PGCPS jointly reviewed these projects and
FCI =
S E C T I O N 1 . 4 . 1 W E I G H T E D F A C I L I T Y C O N D I T I O N S I N D E X

made adjustments to existing deficiencies remedied by the project scope. In many cases, engineering
judgment was used to determine what deficiencies might be impacted by the scope of work provided, and
the accuracy of those adjustments are professional opinions based on the available information. The final
set of data used by the project team is more reflective of the current conditions than the 2012 eCOMET
data without any updates. The following are process notes that describe actions taken based on the project
data provided.
Additions to Deficiencies - Renewals Projected for 2013-2015
Using the report writing function in eCOMET, all the system renewal projections for 2013 -2015
were exported and added to the deficiency list for the associated building in the deficiency export.
Therefore, those renewals will increase the FCI for the associated buildings.
Budget Adjustment versus Complete System Replacement
If a project specifically stated the scope was a complete system replacement, the total dollar
amount in eCOMET for that system deficiency was deducted without regard to the project amount.
If a project did not specifically state it was replacing the complete system but the project dollar
amount was greater than the eCOMET, the full amount of the eCOMET deficiency was deducted.
If the project did not specifically state it was replacing the complete system but the project dollar
amount was significantly lower than the eCOMET deficiency amount, then only the project amount
for that deficiency was deducted. Completed systemic replacements will reduce the FCI for the
associated building.
Pod Conversions and Renovations
The project descriptions for pod conversions and renovations provided, for the most part, the
square footage of the impacted area and the building(s) associated with the work. The percentage
of the building impacted by the project was calculated by using the square footage of the project
and the associated square footage of the building. Deficiency amounts were reduced strictly based
on the percentage of square footage being renovated. Taking into consideration that the spaces
being modified were typically classrooms, the project team selected the deficiencies in the
Uniformat Codes that were likely impacted by the work. A reduction of each deficiency selected
was made based on the percentage of the project to the building (ex: 10,000 sq. ft. renovation of
100,000 sq. ft. building = 10%). These deficiency deductions did not necessarily reflect the project
budget however, completed projects will reduce the FCI for the associated building.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 4 . 5
Projects with No Corresponding eComet Deficiency (Based on Uniformat Code)
There were instances where a project scope covered replacement of a system or systems but there
were no eCOMET exported deficiencies or system renewals before 2016 associated with the
project scope. Adjustments were not made to reflect those project scopes; therefore, no impact on
the 2015 FCI was identified.
No Specific Assets in eCOMET.
The Uniformat Codes provide a standard for categorizing components/systems of a constructed
asset. A building does not include all the assets on a campus. For example, a tennis court contains
some systems that are similar to a building, such as lighting, plumbing, fencing and pavements.
Recreational assets were not specifically addressed in eCOMET, so any of the 2014-2015 projects
associated with those types of assets were not addressed because those projects do not impact
the building’s FCI.
WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY
OVERVIEW
In parallel with the normalization of the eCOMET data to 2015, the project team analyzed attributes1
assigned to deficiencies in eCOMET to determine how they could be used in the WFCI process. It was
determined that two attributes from eCOMET data were reflective of criticality and appropriate for weighting
the FCI. These attributes are the deficiency category and the priority. It was also determined that additional
rating characteristics could be developed by analyzing their impact on learning and the difficulty of
repair/replacement of specific building elements based on their Uniformat Code. Using a scale of one-10,
ratings were assigned to priority, deficiency category, and Unifomat Codes/Assemblies (reflective of impact
on learning and difficulty of repair/replacement). These ratings were applied to the deficiency costs in
eCOMET, then normalized the data by weighting priority, deficiency category, impact on learning, and
difficulty of repair/replacement to calculate a WFCI.
eCOMET ATTRIBUTES
The project team began by reviewing output reports in PDF format from eCOMET that were provided by
PGCPS. The initial review identified three attributes that are assigned to each deficiency in eCOMET that
had the potential for use in the algorithm for the weighted FCI. These were deficiency category, distress,
1 The data attributes included in eComet were assigned by Parsons as part of the 2012 FCI update.
Details are available in Parsons’ report at
http://www1.pgcps.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=173390

and priority. PGCPS provided direct access to eCOMET which enabled our team to export all deficiencies
in the system for PGCPS and perform some analysis. In reviewing the three attributes, the percent of the
total deficiency cost for each attribute was calculated as shown in the following figures:
Based on a review of these attributes and how they were used in the eCOMET data structure, it was
determined that the priority and distress attributes were synchronized, and separating them as criteria did
not provide any additional data clarification. Therefore, deficiency category and priority were the two
eCOMET attributes considered in weighting each of the deficiencies. The definition of the priority categories
is evident based on the descriptions provided in the figure above. The definitions of the deficiency
categories from eCOMET are:
ADA/Accessibility - System does not meet current accessibility Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) standards or does not provide adequate accessibility into, out of, or within a facility.
Appearance - System condition does not meet aesthetic expectations, quality of appearance, and
maintenance best practices.
ADA/Accessibility 1.74
Appearance 0.30
Building Integrity 0.67
Capital Renewal 6.17
Compliance 0.45
Critical Repair 0.00
Differed Maintenance 89.16
Environmental 1.05
Functional Adequacy 0.35
Renovation/Renewal 0.11
Deficiency Categories Percent
1. Critical/Immediate Need 0.16
2. Potentially Critical-12 months 0.05
3. Necessary - 2-5 years 96.88
4. Rocommended - 3-10 years 1.02
5. Does Not Meet Current Code/Standards 1.89
Priority Percent
FIGURE 1.4.1.1: Deficiency Categories, eComet
Beyond Useful Life 98.09
Damaged 0.01
Failing 0.04
Inadequate 1.85
Missing 0.00
Distress Percent
FIGURE 1.4.1.3: Priority Categories, eComet
FIGURE 1.4.1.2: Distress Categories, eComet

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 4 . 7
Building Integrity - System does not meet standards for building structure or envelope integrity.
Capital Renewal – Future renewal requirements for building systems as they reach the end of their
expected useful life. (The category of deferred maintenance is more commonly used.)
Compliance - System does not meet building or life safety code standards.
Critical Repair – System is non-functional and impacts overall building function or may impact
human safety.
Deferred Maintenance – System to be replaced because it is damaged, broken, inadequate,
beyond its service life, or needs remediation.
Environmental - System or component has issue regarding asbestos-containing building materials
(ACBM), indoor air quality (IAQ), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
lead-based paint, air quality, and/or water quality.
Functional Adequacy - System does not function as required for acoustics, lighting, temperature
control, and/or space/educational adequacy.
Renovation/Renewal – Projected system replacement updated to reflect renovation.
UNIFORMAT CODE WEIGHTING
The Uniformat II Code, which is the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard for
classification of building elements and related site work, provides a hierarchy of organizing data in a building
at various levels of detail. The project team evaluated two other attributes assigned to each deficiency; the
Uniformat Code and the assembly name assigned in eCOMET. In eCOMET, deficiency information is
further defined by the assembly name that identifies the material or other information on the system or
component being replaced. The project team exported this information and identified all Uniformat Codes
and descriptions used in the eCOMET data at the deficiency level. This is provided in column A of Appendix
3.2.1.
Ratings were developed to reflect the difficulty of repair or replacement for each Uniformat Code or
assembly, as shown in column B of Appendix 3.2.1. An additional rating was also assigned to each
assembly reflecting the daily impact that the system/element of the building has on the education outcome,
which is referenced as Impact on Learning in column C. Using a scale of high / medium high / average/
medium low / low, ratings were assigned to impact on learning and difficulty of repair based on industry
studies, consultation with PGCPS educational and facilities representatives, and the project team’s
engineering experience. The following provides excerpted entries from Appendix 3.2.1:

The rating for impact on learning was selected based on a planned repair or replacement and did not
consider an unscheduled failure because almost all complete failures would have a negative impact on the
learning environment. The rating is reflective of the consolidated opinions of members of the Facilities
Advisory Committee (FAC), based on two review meetings and a questionnaire provided to the group.
Appendix 3.2.2 provides the detailed questionnaire results from members of the FAC.
DEVELOPING THE WFCI
Applying the numerical value to the associated rating for each of the four attributes is the key component
to development of the WFCI. The ten deficiency categories made a rating scale of one-10 a logical method
of assigning ratings to each of the four attributes. Assigning the ratings for the 10 deficiency categories
required a review of the eCOMET data and the definitions of the categories used by the team that developed
FIGURE 1.4.1.4: Difficulty to Repair Rating

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 4 . 9
the eCOMET database. Because nearly 90 percent of the data is deferred maintenance, it was assigned
a rating of six, while critical repair, building integrity, environmental, and compliance were given higher
ratings. Appearance, capital renewal, and renovation/renewal rated at the lower end of the scale. The
deficiency category ratings are shown in Figure 1.4.1.5 below.
Assigning the numerical value for the priority attribute was evident by the descriptions provided; however,
the project team adjusted the rating for ‘Does Not Meet Current Code/Standards’ to be higher than
‘Recommended-3-10 Years’ based on a review of the data that identified that a majority of code/standard
deficiencies were related to ADA compliance. The impact on learning ratings were straightforward,
weighting high impact as a 10 and low impact a two. Difficulty of repair/replacement was rated as high as
10 and as low as two to reflect the disruptions anticipated in performing the work on the operation of the
school. The ratings for these three attributes are shown below in figures 1.4.1.6-8
Appearance 1
Capital Renewal 2
Renovation/Renewal 3
ADA/Accessibility 4
Functional Adequacy 5
Differed Maintenance 6
Environmental 7
Compliance 8
Building Integrity 9
Critical Repair 10
Deficiency Categories Rating
FIGURE 1.4.1.5: Deficiency Categories
Rating Scale
High 10
Medium High 8
Average 6
Medium Low 4
Low 2
Impact to Learning Rating
1. Critical/Immediate Need 10
2. Potentially Critical-12 months 8
3. Necessary - 2-5 years 6
4. Rocommended - 3-10 years 4
5. Does Not Meet Current Code/Standards 2
Priority Rating
FIGURE1.4.1.6: Impact to Learning Rating Scale FIGURE 1.4.1.7: Difficulty of Repair/Replacement Rating Scale
High 10
Medium High 8
Average 6
Medium Low 4
Low 2
Difficulty of Repair/Replacement Rating
FIGURE 1.4.1.8: Priority Rating Scale

The deficiency costs associated with the Uniformat systems in each of these attribute categories
was multiplied by the above rating values and summed for each building, then divided by 10 times
the total replacement value of the building to normalize the data. The figures below demonstrate
the process for a typical school building:
eCOMET Def Costs
Def Costs X Rating
eCOMET Def Costs
Def Costs X Rating
Total
Replacement Value of Building from 2012 eCOMET Data $13,857,756
FCI Adjusted = (Total Def Costs x Rating)/Replacement Value x 10) 0.22
$3,235,782 $6,388,568 $29,906,524
$539,297 $912,653 $8,073,448
Reno/Renew
10 6 7 5 3
$1,054,164 $6,723,571 $10,794,238 $1,710,201
Rating
Critical Rpr Def Mant Environment Func Adq
1 9 2 8
$263,541 $747,063 $5,397,119 $213,775
FCI Adjusted for eCOMET Deficiency Category
Rating
Deficiency Category
ADA Appearance Bldg Intgr Cap Ren Compliance
4
5
4
$263,541
$1,054,164
Replacement Value of Building from 2012 eCOMET Data $13,857,756
FCI Adjusted = (Total Def Costs x Rating)/Replacement Value x 10) 0.35
Def Costs X Rating $46,859,444 $47,913,608
eCOMET Def Costs $7,809,907 $8,073,448
3 4
10 8 6 2
FCI Adjusted for eCOMET Priority
Rating
Priority
Total
1 2
High Med High Average Med Low Low
10 8 6 4 2
eCOMET Def Costs $1,105,024 $1,520,909 $1,761,499 $3,118,511 $567,505 $8,073,448
Def Costs X Rating $11,050,240 $12,167,274 $10,568,994 $12,474,045 $1,135,010 $47,395,563
$13,857,756
0.34
Replacement Value of Building from 2012 eCOMET Data
FCI Adjusted = (Total Def Costs x Rating)/Replacement Value x 10)
FCI Adjusted for Impact on Learning
Rating
Impact on Learning
Total
FIGURE 1.4.1.9: Deficiency category attribute weighting
FIGURE 1.4.1.10: Priority category attribute weighting
FIGURE 1.4.1.11: Impact on Learning category attribute weighting

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 4 . 11
Once the previous calculation was performed for all four weighting factors (priority, deficiency category,
difficulty of repair/replacement, and impact on learning), the resulting values were weighted as follows:
The difficulty of repair attribute was weighted the highest because of the extensive disruption to school
operations caused by correcting the associated deficiencies. The impact on learning attribute was also
weighted high because of the contribution to educational outcome. The eCOMET attributes were both
weighted much lower because there is not a normal distribution of the data associated with these attributes,
since deferred maintenance and priority three, necessary- two-five years, both represent roughly 90 percent
of the data.
Applying these weightings to the individual adjusted FCI for each attribute and summing the total results in
the WFCI for each building.
WFCI = [(Impact FCI X Weighting) + (Difficulty FCI x Weighting) + (Def Category FCI x Weighting) + (Priority
FCI x Weighting)] x100
High Med High Average Med Low Low
10 8 6 4 2
eCOMET Def Costs $2,003,748 $2,117,040 $1,314,066 $2,537,717 $100,877 $8,073,448
Def Costs X Rating $20,037,484 $16,936,318 $7,884,393 $10,150,869 $201,755 $55,210,819
$13,857,756
0.4
Replacement Value of Building from 2012 eCOMET Data
FCI Adjusted = (Total Def Costs x Rating)/Replacement Value x 10)
FCI Adjusted for Difficulty of Repair/Replacement
Rating
Difficulty of Repair/Replacement
Total
Impact on Learning 0.30
Difficulty of Repair 0.50
Deficiency Categories 0.10
Priority 0.10
Attributes Weighting
FIGURE1.4.1.13: Attribute Weighting
FIGURE 1.4.1.12: Difficulty of Repair/Replacement category attribute weighting

APPLICATION OF THE WFCI
The weighting formula was applied to 159 schools for which FCI data was made available. Generally, the
data was available for all schools constructed prior to 1999 and a complete list is provided in Appendix
3.2.3. As will be discussed in the subsequent section, weighting of the four attribute categories allowed the
project team to evaluate the impact the process had on the relative level of need at each school and to
further define and label building systems for the purpose of establishing project needs at each school.
WFCI PRIORITIZATION
After weighting the FCI scores, the schools were sorted by their WFCI scores and ranked from one-159,
with one having the highest WFCI score of all the schools and 159 having the lowest. Instead of ranking or
prioritizing the distribution of 160 schools one by one, or on a scale of one-100, the portfolio of schools was
prioritized in 25 separate groupings in order to align the results with the priority scores developed for
educational adequacy.
In order to normalize the distribution of the entire portfolio of WFCI scores evenly and in a statistically
significant manner, a scale of 0-53 was used because the lowest WFCI score for any school was 0.27 while
the highest was 52.94. Choosing this method divided the 159 schools into 25 groupings with the
expectations of each having an average of six-seven schools. However, to distribute the portfolio
quantitatively, the inverse function of a normal continuous probability distribution was used. Simply put,
each school’s WFCI score was compared to the WFCI scores of the entire portfolio, the portfolio mean, and
the portfolio standard deviation using a unique probability calculation for each of the 25 groupings.
Statistically speaking, this inverse function returned the appropriate WFCI score such that, with a specific
unique probability, a normal random variable using portfolio mean and portfolio standard deviation takes
on a value less than, or equal to, the specific WFCI score calculated using that probability. Using this syntax,
we first applied probabilities to each grouping and distributed the probabilities of each grouping according
to a bell-shaped curve, with the total area under the curve equal to one.
0.3 0.34 0.102
0.5 0.40 0.200
0.1 0.22 0.022
0.1 0.35 0.035
Total 0.0359
WFCI 36
58
Impact on Learning
Difficulty of Repair
Deficiency Categories
Priority
eCOMET FCI
Attributes Weighting Adjusted FCI Weighted
FIGURE 1.4.1.14: Example WFCI Calculation

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 4 . 13
To complete this exercise, the schools were placed into groupings by dividing the total area under the curve
(of 1.0) by 25, which created a new grouping every .04 or approximately every 2.12 increase or decrease
in WFCI score from 0.27 – 52.94 or (53/25). Once the 25 ranges were calculated, all 159 schools’ WFCI
scores were distributed into the grouping with the appropriate WFCI score range. The resulting placement
established the WFCI priority score for each school. The figure below shows the WFCI priority scores
associated with the WFCI score range groupings.
32.55-33.58 14
31.48-32.54 15
30.40-31.47 16
29.26-30.39 17
29.07-29.25 18
26.79-28.06 19
25.39-26.78 20
23.81-25.38 21
21.93-23.80 22
19.55-21.92 23
15.97-19.54 24
0.27-15.96 25
WFCI Score
Range
WFCI Priority
Score
52.25-52.94 1
48.67-52.24 2
46.29-48.66 3
44.41-46.28 4
42.83-44.40 5
41.43-42.82 6
40.15-41.42 7
38.96-40.14 8
37.82-38.95 9
36.74-37.81 10
35.67-36.73 11
34.63-35.66 12
33.59-34.62 13
WFCI Score
Range
WFCI Priority
Score
FIGURE1.4.1.15: WFCI priority scores based on associated WFCI score range groupings

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
PGCPS engaged the project team to apply a weighting factor to the 2012 Parson’s facility condition index
(FCI) scores for the purpose of better differentiating known systemic deficiencies and to then apply the
results into a rubric for the prioritization of future capital projects. The process used to weight the existing
facility condition data resulted in a weighted facility condition index (WFCI) score and a WFCI priority score
for each school. The WFCI score provides PGCPS with the ability to rank all schools from 1-159 based
strictly on an evaluation of the WFCI results. The WFCI priority score places the schools into a normalized
distribution of 25 groupings, allowing PGCPS to combine WFCI priority results with the educational
adequacy priority results (discussed in the subsequent section).
The data collected from PGCPS and that subsequently developed by the project team allows for a
comprehensive analysis of the WFCI scoring. This analysis will focus first on the impact and efficacy of the
WFCI methodology and, second, on the actual results county-wide and on a school-by-school basis.
WEIGHTING IMPACT AND EFFICACY
Appendix 3.3.1 at the end of this report provides a comparison of the facility condition rankings for the 159
schools included in this analysis. Figures 1.4.1.16 and 1.4.1.7 below include a list of the 10 worst FCI and
WFCI scores, respectively. In both cases, Cherokee Lane Elementary School is listed as the school with
the worst overall score and eight of the 10 worst schools, based on FCI, remained in the top 10, based
upon WFCI.
As shown in the figures below, there is an even stronger correlation among the best scores with both the
FCI and WFCI having the same 10 schools listed and only one minor position change.
SCHOOL NAME Region
2015 B&D
WFCI
2015 Rank
Cherokee Lane ES North 47.99 1
Longfields ES Central 47.43 2
Robert Goddard
Montessori ES Regional 47.19 3
Clinton Grove ES South 47.17 4
*Margaret Brent Regional 46.62 5
Woodmore ES Central 45.99 6
Rose Valley ES South 45.87 7
*James E Duckworth
Regional Regional 45.83 8
Fort Washington
Forest ES South 45.63 9
Lamont ES North 45.6 10
SCHOOL NAME Region
2012
Parsons FCI
2012 Rank
Cherokee Lane ES North 73.2 1
*Margaret Brent Regional 72.4 2
Woodmore ES Central 71.8 3
Rose Valley ES South 71.8 4
*James E. Duckworth
Regional Regional 71.7 5
Clinton Grove ES South 70.8 6
Thomas Clagget ES Central 70.7 7
William Beanes ES South 70.5 8
Longfields ES Central 70.5 9
John Hanson
Montessori Regional 69.64 10
FIGURE 1.4.1.16: 10 highest Parsons FCI schools FIGURE1.4.1.17: 10 highest B&D WFCI schools

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 4 . 15
When viewed comprehensively, weighting of the FCI appears to have had little impact on the average
ranking of schools when organized by school type and region. As shown in the chart below, the vast
majority of school types across all regions only showed an incremental change in the average rankings.
Only high schools in the Central Region showed a significant drop with an average decrease in rank of just
over five places.
However, averaging the results associated with changes in rank is misleading because the total value of
system deficiencies does not change, which means that for every positive change in system rank there
must be a balancing negative change. Data from our assessment proves this to be the case, as the sum
total of positive and negative rank changes across all schools balances out to zero2. In fact, 77 schools
had a negative rank change (rank lowered from 2012 FCI to 2015 WFCI) and 66 schools had a positive
2 Total positive rank changes totaled 428 and total negative rank changes total -428, as shown in Appendix 3.2.3.
SCHOOL NAME Region
2012
Parson’s FCI
2012 Rank
Oxon Hill HS South 0.43 159
Adelphi ES North 8.05 158
Carmody Hills Central 10.2 157
Laurel ES North 12.74 156
Doswell E. Brooks
ES Central 13.97 155
Berwyn Heights ES North 15.02 154
Bradbury Heights ES Central 19.42 153
Carole Highlands ES North 22.48 152
Greenbelt MS North 25.05 151
Dodge Park ES Central 26.73 150
SCHOOL NAME Region
2015 B&D
WFCI
2015 Rank
Oxon Hill HS South 0.3 159
Adelphi ES North 4.9 158
Carmody Hills Central 6.4 157
Laurel ES North 8.6 156
Doswell E. Brooks
ES Central 9 155
Berwyn Heights ES North 9.5 154
Bradbury Heights ES Central 10.9 153
Carole Highlands ES North 14 152
Dodge Park ES Central 16.7 151
Greenbelt MS North 16.9 150
FIGURE 1.4.1.19: 10 lowest B&D WFCI schoolsFIGURE 1.4.1.18: 10 lowest Parsons FCI schools
FIGURE 1.4.1.20: Average change in ranking

rank change. Therefore, it is more important to look at the quantity of rank changes taking place and
evaluate which schools, or school types, had the most significant changes.
The data show that nearly 91% of the 159 schools to which the WFCI was applied moved at least one
ranking position. Of greater significance is the fact that over 45% of schools moved five or more places in
the rankings and just under 20% moved 10 or more places. Furthermore, application of the weighting
algorithm to the FCI scores impacted all school types in all regions. As shown in figure 1.4.1.21 below,
there were schools that made significant moves upward or downward in the rankings across all school
types and in all regions of the county, with the most significant negative moves in Central Region middle
schools and the most significant positive moves predominantly in elementary schools across the district.
This means that application of the weighting factors to the existing FCI data was effective in causing broad
re-prioritization of the schools, regardless of type or region.
WFCI RESULTS
An evaluation of WFCI scores by region shows that, on average, regional schools have the most significant
facility-condition-related concerns, followed by schools located in the Southern and Central Regions.
Northern Region schools have the lowest average WFCI scores, meaning that facility condition concerns
are less prevalent there than in the other regions. To further underscore the previously-discussed impact
of weighting the FCI, figure 1.4.1.22 shows that a WFCI places greater emphasis on Southern Region
schools than did the FCI, indicating that schools in this region have a greater concentration of building
deficiencies in systems with the prioritized attributes3 than do schools in the other regions.
3 From the previous section Impact on Learning, Difficulty to Repair, Deficiency Category, and Priority.
FIGURE 1.4.1.21: Ranking change movement summary

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 4 . 17
A closer examination of the WFCI scores shows that regional schools, regardless of type, and Southern
Region middle schools have the highest WFCI scores. Central Region middle schools and elementary
schools in the Southern Region represent the next highest grouping of average WFCI scores. Middle
schools in the Northern Region, on the other hand, have by far the lowest average WFCI scores in the
county, and elementary and high schools in the north also average among the lowest WFCI scores.
Although these results are only averages, and individual WFCI scores vary widely, it is important to
recognize that regional schools are on average in worse condition than other school types and that the
Southern Region has a higher concentration of schools with high priority facility condition needs than do
the Central or Northern Regions of the county.
FIGURE 1.4.1.22: Average FCI and WFCI scores by region (all school types)
FIGURE 1.4.1.23: Average WFCI scores by region and school type

As discussed previously, the WFCI scores for all schools were distributed into 25 statistically-balanced
groupings in order to establish a WFCI priority score for the purpose of combining the WFCI results with
the educational adequacy results. As shown below, the WFCI priority scores are strongly correlated,
although inversely4, to the WFCI scores. Regional schools and middle schools in the Southern and Central
Regions have the lowest priority scores while Northern Region schools along with Southern Region high
schools have the highest WFCI priority scores.
For the purpose of better understanding what is driving the higher WFCI scores at certain schools, the
project team also evaluated the percentage of building deficiencies concentrated in systems with high
ratings in the difficulty of repair and impact on learning attributes. As summarized in the figure below, the
team labeled building systems with difficulty of repair and impact on learning ratings greater than six (6) as
the highest priority. Systems with a difficulty of repair rating greater than six (6) but an impact on learning
rating equal to, or less than, six (6) were labeled as difficult to repair/replace. Systems with a difficulty of
repair less than six (6) and an impact on learning greater than six (6) were labeled as impact on learning.
4 Lower WFCI priority scores indicate worse building conditions. A priority of one is a lower score and represents worse facility
conditions than a priority of 25.
FIGURE 1.4.1.24: WFCI scores and WFCI priority scores by region and school type

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 4 . 19
The project team was careful to ensure there were no systems overlapping groups. All systems that did not
fit into these categories were labeled as Other.
As expected, schools with the greatest concentration of deficiencies in the highest priority, difficulty of
repair, and impact on learning categories also had the highest WFCI scores. Middle schools in the Southern
Region, which are already noted as having the highest WFCI scores, have by far the greatest concentration
of deficiencies in the highest priority systems in addition to having the highest concentration of deficiencies
in systems with high impact on learning and difficulty to repair ratings. Similarly, northern schools, which
have the lowest WFCI scores, have the lowest concentration of deficiencies in the highest priority systems.
Other important considerations identified in the figure below include:
 Despite low overall average WFCI scores, high schools in the south have a high concentration of
their deficiencies in systems that are labeled difficult to repair. This could have significant
implications on final project recommendations for schools in this region (discussed in a later
section).
 The high WFCI scores in Central Region middle schools appear to be driven predominantly by a
high concentration of deficiencies in systems that have an impact on the learning environment. It
is probable that these schools will have correlated educational adequacy problems.
>6 >6 >=6 >=6
>6 <=6 >=6 >=6
<6 >6 >=6 >=6
Group Name
Highest Priority
Difficulty Repair/Replacement
Impact on Learning
Other/Rest Other/Rest
System Grouping HP
System Grouping DRR
System Grouping IMP
System Grouping OTH
Groups
Difficulty
of Repair
Impact on
Learning
Deficiency Priority
FIGURE1.4.1.25: Building System Rating Priority
FIGURE 1.4.1.26: Ranking change summary

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1. Weighting of the 2012 FCI data had a significant impact on the relative ranking of schools based
on facility conditions, causing 92% of schools to move at least one spot in the rankings and 17% to
move 10 or more places. This indicates that the weighting process was effective in differentiating
schools based on their unique system deficiency profiles.
2. On average, regional schools have the highest WFCI scores, followed closely by schools in the
Southern and Central Regions. Northern Schools, on average, have the lowest WFCI scores.
3. All regional schools, regardless of type, in addition to middle schools in the Southern and Central
Regions, have the highest average WFCI score, indicating a higher overall level of facility condition
needs.
4. Concentrations of deficiencies in high priority systems are linked to higher WFCI scores and several
school types have concentrations of deficiencies in systems that are difficult to repair. This has
significant implications on the types of projects that must be undertaken to correct the problems.

J U N E 2 0 1 5 1 . 4 . 21
METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
An educational adequacy assessment is the evaluation of a school facility’s ability to support defined
standards as outlined in the district’s educational specifications. The assessment details the degree to
which a school facility can provide and support educational functions that meet the district’s mission, goals,
and standards for learning environments. It identifies local needs and develops a gap analysis that
compares existing facility conditions to the ideal standards and provides a score for each component. These
scores inform one part of the methodology used by the project team to make modernization
recommendations.
The overall educational adequacy score is comprised of three components: the campus, the individual, and
the space adequacy scores. The following information provides a summary of the methodology used to
formulate the educational adequacy score. The methodology includes data collection, building
assessments, prioritization of data, generation of educational adequacy scorecards, and creation of project
write-ups based on the scorecards. An overall analysis of the results is included at the end of this section.
EDUCATIONAL SPECIFICATIONS
In February 2015 the district approved educational specifications (Ed Specs) for both primary and
secondary schools. As stated by the district, Ed Specs are designed to “clearly describe the various learning
activities to be housed in the school, their spatial requirements, appropriate locations within the building or
the site, and any special requirements that a designer or a facility planner would need to consider.” The
district also states the specifications should “serve as the link between the educational program and school
facilities.”
The project team used the Ed Specs, along with PGCPS administrative support, to develop a customized
educational adequacy survey for primary and secondary schools, which included campus and individual
space assessments. Schools were evaluated against the appropriate survey based on school type. Certain
schools, such as Pre-K-8 or those housing regional specialty programs, do not fall into a specific category,
so they were assessed using a combination of both surveys.
S E C T I O N 1 . 4 . 2 E D U C A T I O N A L A D E Q U A C Y

DATA COLLECTION AND SCORECARD GENERATION
Over the course of nine weeks, six survey teams performed campus and individual space assessments at
163 schools, collecting nearly 627,000 data points that drive the educational adequacy scoring. During each
site tour and individual space assessment, teams would spend a few minutes asking principals and
teachers about interior air quality and heating and air conditioning systems performance. They typically
asked if there was any other pertinent information they wanted to share. This information allowed teams to
gather additional data not apparent by initial observation.
Each team observed environmental context clues while touring, such as windows open during the winter
because the unit heaters were overheating the space or posters, paint, and papers peeling off walls
because of recurring humidity issues. Typically, teams would speak with administrative staff to discuss site
circulation and other features not readily obvious when walking the school.
The project team used QuickTap Survey software to collect data during the site walks. The survey was pre-
loaded onto iPads, which were then issued to the assessment teams. The survey software allowed the
assessor to choose one of the following three responses for each survey question:
 Yes: The space fully meets the
requirements of the Ed Specs.
 Some: The space meets some of the
 No: The space does not meet the
The assessor performed the individual space
assessment, detailed below, for each learning space.
To maximize the functionality of the tool, some survey
questions did not apply to all learning spaces. If they
did not, the assessor left these questions blank. Blank
answers did not influence the educational adequacy
final result.
All data were uploaded to a single server and used to
generate a school-specific educational adequacy
priority scorecard. The scorecard was calculated by
rating each campus and individual space
subcomponent as excellent, satisfactory, borderline,
poor, or deficient. An example scorecard is shown in
Figure 1.4.2.1. FIGURE 1.4.2.1: Educational Adequacy Scorecard

Volume 1 - June Final

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Volume 1 - June Final

Similaire à Volume 1 - June Final (20)

Volume 1 - June Final