Facilities Assessment – Building

Facilities varying in terms of age, design, construction methods, and materials were reviewed to determine the condition of the district’s portfolio. The Facilities Assessment – Building (FA-B) team performed assessments to determine existing components and/or systems’ conditions at a specific point in time. The resulting information was then used to guide recommendations regarding maintenance, renovation, and/or replacement.

Facility assessment considerations were categorized and weighted into primary and secondary criteria, as determined by the BuildBPS management team. The weighted scoring allowed for the most critical criteria to establish the overall rating, while not be overly influenced by important but more readily repairable/replaceable elements.

Primary criteria, in many instances, affect multiple other facility criteria and systems, and are deeply systemic relative to their repair or replacement. Primary criteria included:

• Life Safety: Means of Egress
• Life Safety: Fire Alarm
• Security: Entry Sequence
• Accessibility
• Heating Distribution Systems
• Ventilation Distribution Systems
• Plumbing Distribution Systems
• Structural Systems (consisting of the following components):
• Roof Framing: This is the horizontal framing consisting of decking, slabs, joists, beams, trusses, etc.
• Floor Framing: This is the horizontal framing consisting of decking, slabs, joists, beams, trusses, etc.
• Walls and Columns: These are the vertical elements that hold up the floors and roof structures.
• Foundations: Foundations occur at the base of the building and transfer the weight of the building onto the underlying soils.
• Facades: These are the outside walls of the building including many non-structural elements (doors, windows, insulation, vapor barriers, etc.) that are part of the weather enclosure for the building.
• Lateral System: The lateral system in a building is the structural system that keeps the building from falling over when it is subjected to horizontal loads such as wind and earthquake forces.

Secondary criteria often consist of singular systems, and are more “standalone” in their repair or replacement. Buildings can typically remain occupied if the necessary work can be completed over the course of a summer. It should be noted that many secondary criteria are related to primary ones, and that their repair or replacement may only result in temporary or limited operational benefits for the building. Secondary criteria included:

• Electrical Service
• Roof Membrane
• Façade
• Lighting Quantity & Control
• Boilers
• Toilets and Fixtures
• Life Safety: Fire Protection: Sprinklers
• Windows

There were additional evaluation criteria listed that were not included in either the primary or secondary categories. These items were included for reference or to note a particular condition, as well as for cost modeling.

FA-B Criteria Rating Hierarchy

The facility assessment building evaluations used a quintile classification hierarchy as defined below:

• Adequate: System or element is in new or like-new condition and functioning optimally; only routine maintenance and repair is needed.
• Minor: System or element functioning reliably; routine maintenance and repair is needed.
• Moderate: System or element functioning minimally. Repair or replacement of some or all components is needed.
• Replace: System or element is non-functioning, not functioning as designed, or is unreliable. Repair or replacement of some or all components is needed
• Not Present: System or element is non-existent, non-functioning, not functioning as designed, or is unreliable. Replacement is needed.

FA-B Evaluation Criteria

Major Investments (> $5 Mil) in the Last 20 Years: Yes/No; Comments, if applicable. Information provided by BPS. Criteria included as a reference to note any recent upgrades to buildings. Any portions of the facility that have received investments were evaluated per their current condition.

Roof

• Roof Membrane: Condition status noted for the roofing material and flashings. What is the roofing material? What is its condition? How is it adhered? What is the condition of the substrate? Is there deterioration? What is the percentage of patching?
• Roof – Space for Solar: Yes/No; Comments, if applicable. Do relatively flat areas exist for possible future solar panels? It should be noted that the roof structure was not reviewed for structural capacity. Criteria noted; however, presence or absence of photovoltaic panels did not impact overall building condition.

Façade: Condition status noted for the exterior wall material(s). What is the façade material? If brick or concrete masonry unit (CMU), is any spalling or disintegrating? What is the condition of the mortar? What percentage of it is failing? Is there any obvious movement or structural cracking? If the façade is made of a prefabricated panel system, what is its surface condition? Is the surface or caulking deteriorating? What is the attachment system and its condition? Is there any movement in the panels?

Windows: Condition status noted. Are the windows transparent? What percentage of the windows are translucent in the school? Do they comprise a single or double pane of glass? Have their seals failed? Are their mechanical systems working? Does their hardware work? Are there any obvious alignment failures? Do they have closing-limiter devices?

Boilers: Condition status noted. Have boilers upgraded fuel type and heating media? Water or steam? Review of any maintenance records or inspections.

Heating Distribution Systems: Condition status noted. Piping condition, type, and apparent corrosion reviewed.

Ventilation Distribution Systems: Condition status noted. Location and appearance of exhaust fans. Location and appearance of air-conditioning equipment. Condition of ductwork.

Electrical Service: Condition status noted. Review of available capacity. Review of location and appearance of electrical service and meter age.

Existing Photovoltaics: Yes/No; Comments, if applicable. Criteria noted; however, presence or absence of photovoltaics did not impact overall building condition.

Life Safety

• Means of Egress: Condition status noted. Are there proper smoke and/or fire doors? Do the mechanical hold-open devices work? Are there illuminated exit signs and are they in the proper location? Is the path of egress direct and unencumbered? Is there a proper number of exits with regard to the facility population?
• Fire Protection (Sprinklers): Condition status noted. Type and age of system and components. Review of maintenance records and certifications, if available.
• Fire Alarm: Condition status noted. Type, age, and appearance of systems. Review of available testing records.

Security

• Entry Sequence: Most, if not all, schools have a camera/buzzer system at their main entrance. By today’s standards, that is not adequate. Proximity of the main entrance to the main office is essential. This allows for direct observation of the entire person, as well as control of their movements.
• Lighting Quality/Control: Observed light level at the working surface (not measured) combined with the type of light fixture for an even dispersion of light for general academic tasks as well as for use of technology. Condition status noted. What is the lighting system? How are the lights controlled? Where is the lighting control located? Is the lighting system uniform within the space being reviewed? What is the percentage of units not working?

Toilets and Fixtures: Condition status noted. Fixture locations and appearance. Maintenance and cleanliness of fixtures and flow of fixtures.

Plumbing Distribution Systems: Condition status noted. Review of piping type, apparent corrosion, and equipment, including presence or absence of water heater & back-flow preventer.

Accessibility: Is the facility compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990? Are there adequate ramps, lifts, and elevators? Can every space in the facility be accessed by anyone with a disability? Is the door hardware compliant and does it maintain proper distance from a perpendicular wall? Are water fountains and other hallway obstacles compliant? Are toilet facilities compliant?

Structural Systems

The assessment team conducted visual inspections only to look for signs of deterioration. No exploratory demolition, removing finishes, or viewing above ceilings was conducted. There were areas that were hard to reach, off limits, or obscured by other systems that prohibited view of the structure. Each of the criteria listed below is considered as it relates to the structural elements of the building.

A “Yes” comment in the assessment indicates that we observed signs of deterioration. A “Not Observed” comment in the assessment indicates that we either did not observe any distress in the structural element or were not able to observe the element due to the aforementioned limitations. Therefore, a “Not Observed” does not necessarily mean that there is no distress present. Notes in the “Comments” section of the assessment are typically provided when the team observed signs of deterioration.

• Roof Structural Framing: Because the framing is covered by roofing, observations are usually made from below. Water leaks are a common cause of damage to roof framing so part of the visual assessment is to look for signs of water damage. With wood framed structures, this can be mold or rotting wood. In structures with metal deck, it can be rusting of the deck and in concrete structures it can be cracks with rust stains or spalled concrete. Spalled concrete is where a section of concrete has broken off. This is usually caused by water penetrating into concrete through small cracks causing the steel reinforcing to rust and expand putting outward pressure on the concrete and causing it to break off.
• Floor Structural Framing: Common signs of deterioration in floors can be cracks in floors finishes (such as terrazzo), cracks in the bottom of concrete slabs or beams, water damage similar to that in roofs and longitudinal cracks (or checks) in wood framing. Cracks in floor finishes while cosmetically objectionable is not necessarily an indication of a structural failure. There are several causes for cracks in wood framing members (joists or beams) and it does not necessarily mean the member is structurally inadequate.
• Walls and Columns: Walls are typically framed with masonry, concrete, or wood or light gage metal studs with varying finishes. Columns typically consist of steel, concrete, or wood posts and can also be masonry piers. Common signs of deterioration in concrete and masonry walls are cracks in the walls. Usually the cracks run vertically (bottom to top) although in masonry walls the cracks often follow the mortar joints between the masonry units. Cracks in walls can be caused by many factors: shrinkage in the wall due to changes moisture or temperature, movement of the supporting structure, or stresses in the wall caused by other loads. Concrete columns can have spalled concrete, wood posts can have longitudinal cracks (similar to floor members) and masonry piers can have cracks similar to walls.
• Foundations: There are numerous types of foundations including shallow spread footings (concrete pads) and deep foundations such as caissons and piles that extend deep into the ground. Foundations generally include concrete components and are located below ground – making the system difficult to observe without performing some excavation. Some common signs of deterioration in foundations are cracks in foundation walls and areas where there has been vertical movement indicating that there may have been some settlement of the structure over time. The causes of the cracks are similar to those described for walls and it is common for structures to undergo some settlement over time.
• Facades: The structural components of the façade are typically the wall structure (see “Walls” above) but can also include the structural framing for overhangs or other horizontal elements that are part of the walls. Like roof framing, moisture is a common cause for distress in facades. Common signs of distress are spalled concrete, cracks in concrete or masonry walls, and rusting steel members such as angle lintels over window and door openings in masonry walls. As discussed previously, some of these signs of deterioration do not necessarily indicate a structural deficiency and might only require maintenance.
• Identifiable Lateral System: There are several types of lateral load-resisting systems such as steel braced frames or shear walls consisting of concrete or masonry walls. Often, steel braced frames are buried inside walls making them difficult to identify and it can also be difficult to determine if a masonry wall is a shear wall or just a partition wall. In addition, it is not possible to determine the structural adequacy of shear walls or braced frames without an in-depth investigation and it should be noted that many masonry walls in older buildings have little or no reinforcing. Common signs of distress in concrete and masonry shear walls are similar to those described for walls above.

Overall FA-B Rating

Each of the assessment criteria is categorized into primary and secondary groupings as determined by the BPS executive team. The primary criteria are weighted by a factor of (3), to differentiate the elements that (1) require significant time to repair or replace, (1) have construction costs greater than the singular element’s cost factor, and (1) pose a construction challenge (degree of difficulty) to repair. The weighted scoring allows for the most critical criteria to establish the Overall scores and not be overly influenced by important but more readily repaired/replaced elements

Community – Building Evaluation Criteria

Mass Historical Commission Status: Yes/No; Comments, if applicable. Criteria will inform opportunities and constraints for modifying the existing building to meet changing physical demands for a 21st century learning environment.

Inventory of Historic Assets: Yes/No; Comments, if applicable. Is the building “Listed” on the State’s Inventory of Historic Assets? Criteria will inform opportunities and constraints for modifying the existing building to meet changing physical demands for a 21st century learning environment.

State Register of Historic Places: Yes/No; Comments, if applicable. Is the building “Listed” on the State’s Register of Historic Places? Criteria will inform opportunities and constraints for modifying the existing building to meet changing physical demands for a 21st century learning environment.

Emergency Shelter: Yes/No; Comments, if applicable. The City of Boston provided a list of all shelters to SMMA. Criteria noted and considered as part of the overall community building score.

Community-Use Spaces: Yes/No; Comments, if applicable. These were determined after speaking with school administration during site visits. Community spaces attached to schools were also considered. Criteria noted and considered as part of the overall community building score.

Building Suitability for School Use: Yes/No; Comments, if applicable. Considered any major life-safety concerns for suitability. Criteria will inform opportunities and constraints for modifying the existing building.

Overall Community – Building Rating
This is a judgment on the part of the reviewer(s) that takes into account all aforementioned factors, as well as amenities located in proximity to school sites and access to public transportation.

Educational Facility Effectiveness – Learning Environments

The quality of physical environments has direct impact on educational outcomes. The Educational Facility Effectiveness – Learning Environments (EFE-LE) analysis considers both inherent building characteristics and introduced equipment (e.g., furniture and technology), as well as the physical appearance and condition. These qualitative factors influence students’ comfort and ability to concentrate on tasks, teacher and student health, absenteeism and retention—ultimately having an impact on overall performance.

Building environments also affect overall rating. In those cases, “fixed” elements that are not easily remedied and have a direct impact on teaching and learning weigh more heavily than those that can be easily altered. The more impactful components are referred to as primary criteria. Secondary criteria can be updated or supplemented more easily.

Primary Criteria:

• Ventilation
• Lighting Quality
• Acoustical
• Natural Daylighting
• Air Quality
• Environment (Inviting/Stimulating/Comfortable)

Similar to the physical facility narrative, in many instances, the EFE-LE primary criteria affect multiple other criteria and systems, and are deeply systemic in their repair or replacement. Buildings may need to be unencumbered of students (i.e., vacant) for the duration of the work, depending on the upgrades required.

Secondary Criteria:

• Technology: Power
• Technology: Interactive
• Finishes
• Outdoor Classrooms
• Technology: Wireless
• Furniture
• Adjacencies of Learning Environments

Again, similar to the physical facility narrative, secondary criteria often consist of singular systems, and are more “standalone” in their repair or replacement. They may also change frequently, with the evolving landscape of educational pedagogy, and should support a building that can adapt flexibly at relatively lower costs. Many secondary-criteria upgrades may be able to be performed internally by facilities personnel or with arranged contracts.

EFE-LE Criteria Rating Hierarchy

The educational facility effectiveness assessment for learning environments used a quintile classification hierarchy as defined below:

• Excellent: Elements meet needs for 21st century teaching and learning
• Good: Elements contribute to teaching and learning
• Fair: Elements somewhat interfere with teaching and learning
• Poor: Elements detract from or interfere with teaching and learning
• Deficient: Non-existent or inoperable systems or elements

EFE-LE Evaluation Criteria

Building Originally Designed As: Over time, many school buildings have changed the grades they serve. Knowing their original use quickly provides some insight into space types and building appointments. The Grade Configuration to Which This School [Building] Is Best Suited: The types, numbers, and sizes of spaces, as well as the sites, may influence the building’s future use.

Ventilation: Fresh air is an important component for good brain activity and overall student performance. An even distribution of ventilated air is also important. Is mechanical ventilation provided? What appears to be the quality of the system?

Natural Daylighting: This is viewed as a better quality of light than electrical lighting. What appears to be the quantity/quality of the natural light?

Lighting Quality: Observed light level at the working surface (not measured) combined with the type of light fixture for an even dispersion of light for general academic tasks as well as for use of technology.

Air Quality: Different ventilation systems provide varying levels of outdoor air percentages and filtration (e.g., unit ventilators vs. central air ventilation vs. no mechanical ventilation provided). What appears to be the quality being provided by the mechanical system? Scientific measurements were not taken.

Acoustical: The proper balance between voice reinforcement and sound absorption impacts “speech intelligibility.” This includes both internal space performance and outside noise. Does the space appear to have appropriate acoustical properties for teaching and learning?

Technology

• Power: Are there sufficient electrical outlets to support a future technology-rich classroom/ school? Are they properly distributed throughout the space?
• Wireless: Are there sufficient access points throughout the school to support a 1:1 technology environment? Is the building served by fiber optic wiring? Is the main distribution room (i.e., server room) air-conditioned, to help ensure system reliability?
• Interactive: Do the classrooms and other teaching spaces have working interactive technology, such as interactive marker boards and document cameras?

Furniture: Different educational-delivery models can be reinforced by furniture type and flexibility. Is the furniture light enough in weight to be flexibly arranged? Is it ergonomic, comfortable, and in good condition?

Finishes: What is the condition of the wall/floor and ceiling finishes? Both physical and aesthetic conditions were considered. Environment (Inviting/Stimulating/Comfortable): Is this a building that is aesthetically pleasing? One in which students and teachers feel comfortable and want to spend time, day after day?

Adjacencies of Learning Environments: Do classrooms and other learning environments have a relationship to each other that promotes collaboration, communication, and other aspects of 21st century teaching and learning? Do the spaces promote interdisciplinary learning?

Outdoor Classrooms: Outdoor classrooms afford students the opportunity to learn in different ways, sometimes involving nature and hands-on activities. Is one or more present?

Site

• Playgrounds/Play Areas: Are there hard surface play areas on the school site? Play structures that are age-appropriate to the school children? What is their condition?
• Accessible: Are the play areas, including the ground surface/material, accessible to children with handicaps? What is their condition?
• Play Fields: Are soft (e.g., grass) play fields or areas on the school site? What is their condition?
• Flexibility in Building Typology: Can the building serve alternative grade levels or support a special needs-focused curriculum?

Educational Transformation to Support 21st Century Needs: Is the building construction flexible enough to allow for renovations that, for example, change room sizes, change or upgrade mechanical and electrical systems, and accommodate alternative educational-delivery methods (e.g., project-based learning [PBL])? This can often be the difference between a modern steel-frame building and interior masonry-bearing wall construction.

Can the Building Serve as Swing Space?: (Assumes the building is otherwise unoccupied.) The ability to use the building for educational purposes for the temporary relocation of a school population during a period of renovation or construction.

Utilization Rate: Is the building’s utilizations rate 85% or higher? Classrooms at 85% utilization are considered at capacity. Rates higher than 85% show levels of overcapacity and overcrowding.

Overall EFE-LE Rating

The criteria are weighted by factors of (3) and (1), to differentiate between elements that are easily remedied or replaced and those that require significant time, cost, and pose a construction challenge (degree of difficulty) to repair. The primary and secondary criteria for each assessment category are listed under each assessment category above. The overall facility condition is a combination of all weighted factors.

Educational Facility Effectiveness – Spaces

The Educational Facility Effectiveness – Spaces (EFE-S) metric compares the sizes of educational spaces to Massachusetts 963 CMR guidelines for 21st century teaching and learning in new capital projects. This quantitative analysis is important for establishing the level of adequacy of the existing spaces for educational delivery. It also indicates whether a facility is deficient/missing dedicated educational spaces normally found in buildings of its grade level and typology.

Primary criteria often affect core curriculum and include:

• Classrooms (Depending on Typology, These Include Pre-K and Kindergarten)
• Teacher Planning
• Small Group
• Science
• Art
• Music
• Vocations and Technology
• Media Center
• Cafeteria

Secondary criteria may allow for district flexibility in programming and community resources outside the traditional building environment, and include:

• Gymnasium (Because this program space Is sometimes served by local community spaces)
• Gymnasium Options
• Auditorium
• Stage
• Medical
• Administration & Guidance
• Air-Conditioned Technology Network Room

Other criteria:

• Special Education: Self-Contained
• Special Education: Resource or Small Group

Note: If a school has a special education program, its quantity of spaces will vary. Also, some substantially separate programs do not require full-size classrooms to be effective. For this reason, special education was considered differently than typical classroom spaces

EFE-S Criteria Rating Hierarchy

The educational facility effectiveness assessment for spaces used a quintile classification hierarchy as defined below:

• Excellent: Exceeds Massachusetts 963 CMR net-square-footage (NSF ) guidelines (+10% or greater)
• Good: School facilities are appropriate to house current enrollment and educational program. NSF meets Massachusetts 963 CMR guidelines (-10% to +10%)
• Fair: School facilities appear to be adequately sized for current enrollment and educational program. NSF somewhat less than Massachusetts 963 CMR (-10% to -20%)
• Poor: School facilities may not be adequately sized for current enrollment and educational program. Net square footage at least 20% less than Massachusetts 963 CMR guidelines
• Deficient: Dedicated space does not exist.

Narratives The team considered the long-term goals relative to each building’s capability of supporting BPS’ educational vision for 21st century learning and teaching.

Engaged Learning

Engaging with the curriculum, applying it to an authentic context. Making connections between content areas and values/curiosity and interest. Finding connections to the community, making a difference. Public and tangible products. Selective and intentional engagement, agency in how one keeps focused and takes breaks.

• The building (is/is not) comfortable to learn in.
• The building (has/lacks) appropriate temperature control and ventilation.
• The building (has/lacks) a space that can be used as a flexible learning commons for collaborative learning and presentations.
• The building (makes use/does not make use) of public space for teaching and learning.
• The building (provides/lacks) display space for student work to reinforce student accomplishments.
• The building (provides/lacks) space for teacher collaboration and planning.

Differentiated Learning

Acknowledging different learning styles, how to understand one’s own (self-knowledge). Flexibility that is occurring in instruction, plus flexibility in how people show that learning.

• Classrooms (are/are not) large enough to support Universal Design for Learning (UDL), including the ability to create learning zones.
• The building (has/lacks) breakout spaces for differentiated/personalized learning and special education.
• The furniture in the building (can be/has difficulty being) flexibly arranged.

Cognitively Demanding Tasks/Programs

• The classroom environment (is/is not) sufficiently flexible to allow for different teaching and learning styles.
• Building (supports/lacks) learning environments that support music.
• Building (supports/lacks) learning environments that support art.
• Building (supports/lacks) learning environments that support physical activity/education.
• The building environment (supports/does not support) STEM adequately.
• The building (provides/lacks) space to experiment, create and collaborate.
• The building (has/lacks) performance/presentation space.
• Based on location and proximity to community resources and public transportation, teachers and students (can/have difficulty) access(ing) the City as a learning tool.

Equitable Access to a Rigorous Curriculum Access is the core issue. What is meant at different grade levels regarding a minimum number of rigorous courses? Drill down in a detailed way, identifying benchmarks that align to equitable access. Example: If one wants students in calculus by the end of high school, then completion of algebra must be benchmarked.

• The building (is part of/is not clearly) an equitable pathway from K through 12.
• The teaching and learning spaces (are/are not) operated and maintained equitably.
• The building (is secure/lacks adequate security) for a safe environment for learning.
• The building (has/lacks) a welcoming and coherent entry sequence.
• The building (provides/lacks) space for de-escalation and sensory calming.

Vision of 21st Century Digital Learning Anytime, anywhere learning, often related to “distance learning,” but can also be from anywhere within the school building, campus, or home. Best accomplished with portable technology, either personal (BYOD – bring your own device) or school-supplied; it can extend the learning process within or beyond the school day.

• The building has internet infrastructure for all classrooms and public spaces, including a fiber optic backbone, switches, and wireless access points. The system is likely insufficient to support 1:1 or laptop-based standardized testing.
• The building (is/is not) flexible and expandable.
• The building (does/does not) connect on multimedia platforms for cross-disciplinary programming.
• Digital arts and media integral to more traditional Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) initiatives.
• More recent goals include the incorporation of the arts and creative elements of education embodied in STE(Arts)M.

Overall EFE-S Rating

Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) areas are based on current enrollment within school. Actual areas were determined by measuring CADD plans provided by BPS.

SMMA did not field-measure the buildings, but verified general conformity with existing conditions by measuring spot values to determine the rough accuracy of CADD drawings.

• Excellent: Elements meet needs for 21st century teaching and learning.
• Good: Elements contribute to teaching and learning.
• Fair: Elements somewhat interfere with teaching and learning.
• Poor: Elements detract from or interfere with teaching and learning.
• Deficient: Non-existent or inoperable systems or elements.

Phase I: The Pilot Phase

During the week of August 3, 2015, the facility assessment team conducted a three-school, four-building pilot study, representing the first phase of BuildBPS. BPS and the BuildBPS management team selected the three schools based on the range of characteristics exemplified by each, taking into consideration the broader context of the entire BPS portfolio. The pilot-phase schools chosen were the Jeremiah E. Burke High School, the Mario Umana Academy, and the Dr. William W. Henderson Upper and Lower Schools.

The purpose of the pilot phase was to determine the types, and understand the amounts, of data available from the City and BPS for all of the district’s buildings. The team evaluated the pilot buildings and schools using the four main categories (FA-B, FA-S, EFE-LE, and EFE-S), as well as the additional community categories.

EFE-B Assessments

The pilot educational assessments were conducted during the summer, while school was out of session, although high-level interviews with school leaders were conducted during the course of the school year. For the pilot phase, the teams determined qualitative and numeric links between each building’s space and its educational conduciveness.

The educational assessments were conducted by two teams, one each from SMMA and MGT. The teams toured each school building together over a four-hour period, walking with principals to glean as much insight as possible regarding the schools’ educational adequacy relative to the physical environment, and in anticipation of potential changes to accommodate 21st century educational pedagogy.

The teams then gathered their data using MGT’s data-management system, “scoring” each school relative to observations in the field. They also noted general capacity and spatial constraints, to develop diagrammatic program and deficiency plans relative to the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s (MSBA) space summary of standards, thereby creating a milestone, or base level of understanding, for further potential study. These educational space assessments were anticipated to be critical data for evaluating the best utilization of each building.

FA-B and FA-S Assessments

Physical assessments of the buildings and sites were conducted using two teams of experts led by SMMA and WSP | PB. Teams spent a full day at each school, and a half day at each Henderson building, touring the facilities with custodial and/or facility staff members. The intention of this process was to discover and record as much information as possible for inclusion in a format to be reviewed by BPS and the City of Boston’s Public Facilities Department (PFD).

From this review, the teams developed a more streamlined approach to the physical assessments that would include critical components of the building conditions, and also allow for every facility to be assessed within the time and scope available.

City and Neighborhoods

The team also collected data pertinent to the schools’ student populations and educational, physical, social/economic, and ecological milieu. Much of this data included educational and civic resources nearby and available to each school. It was anticipated that some of this data would play a key role in understanding the broader context of potential school partners and infrastructure to each school.

Phase I Critical Information

• Assessments did not reflect the current schools’ educational outcomes, but only measure each school building’s physical and spatial quantities and qualities, and their appropriateness for the educational programs offered.
• Educational space assessments needed to be conducted with principals while school was in session, to allow for better observation and understanding of how spaces and environments were being utilized by students and staff.
• Building physical assessments needed to be conducted with knowledgeable facility staff while the buildings were vacant, so that the assessment teams could easily gain access to areas and systems, thereby covering more schools in less time (this was changed in Phase II, to assessing buildings while in session).
• It was critical to review all data with BPS Facilities and Boston Property and Construction Management staff for accuracy.
• The BuildBPS team initially chose not to weight criteria collected based on BPS goals and needs, nor on the complexity of repairs/renovations and cost implications. (This was later changed as more data was collected in Phase III).
• The team utilized state guidelines and standards until final the BPS educational planning approach was approved (anticipated delivery by Phase III).
• It was important to record the buildings/sites capable of expansion to meet 21st century and BPS educational planning goals by understanding the immediate surroundings and clarifying, where possible, each building’s plot plans.
• Teams needed to understand the transportation network and conditions of each site.
• It was critical for teams to identify available community resources, relationships, and public transportation available to teachers and students, which would allow them to access the city as a learning tool.
• Teams needed to report any critical safety concerns to BPS immediately upon discovery.

Phase I Portfolio Observations

• Some renovation work was short of code compliance, particularly relative to distribution and piping systems.
• Many older facilities lack adequate ventilation (common for buildings of the eras constructed).
• Most facilities did not fully comply with MAAB/ADA requirements, due to building age and renovation dates predating current compliance requirements. (It should be noted that BPS supports the goals of a full-inclusion model of universal access).
• Many program spaces were undersized by 21st century standards or not present at all. BPS uses many City and partner facilities to supplement these program deficiencies, often forging important community bonds that should be thoughtfully considered when evaluating facilities for long-term inclusion.
• Some programs seemed to be “fit” into existing buildings and spaces, often inappropriately so.

Phase I Overall Assessment Summary

Upon completion of the pilot phase, the BuildBPS management team reviewed the various assessment methodologies and determined that a hybrid approach would best meet the framework objectives, budget, and schedule of the educational and facility master plan.

After reviewing the previous master plan, published in 1993, the team recognized that a traditional facilities report would likely stagnate and be cumbersome to manage and update. The more recent needs assessment study, conducted in 2010 by the MSBA, also provided challenges, because of the simplicity of the metrics used (building conditions were based on an overall four-point scale that covered all aspects of a facility).

Finally, although helpful, comprehensive building due diligence reports, like those completed during this phase, were outside the project scope and budget, and were seen to be most useful when implemented during project feasibility studies. The team chose a set of primary and secondary building and education space criteria, separating the assessments into the four primary categories, as noted, and using a quintile grading scale that would offer the most complete and current insight into the building portfolio, while also being easily updatable over time.

It was also concluded that facility information without educational planning and vision would not result in a clear path forward. The EFE assessments’ inclusion would give the district the clearest understanding of which facilities are most capable of being transformed to meet the critical needs of a rich, diverse, 21st century curriculum.

The team found that building sites and neighborhoods provided one of the most complex and nuanced elements of the district, taking into account geography and physical separation, dense urban fabric, variegated residential environments, and a complex school assignment, grade pathway, and transportation environment.

Phase II: The Methodology Test Phase

Before embarking on the remainder of the portfolio, the BuildBPS team conducted a second phase to test its newly developed and evolved methodology. In this phase, 19 schools were chosen to fit within a matrix according to typology (i.e., grade structure) and era constructed, and each building was required to have current floor and site plans available. The schools would also be occupied during this phase.

The BPS portfolio of schools is extensive and complicated, especially for a district of its size. The Phase II approach was intended to test the 19 school buildings using the new, agreed-upon methodology, to gain a deeper understanding of broader district conditions while Superintendent Chang’s newly formed administration developed its 100-day plan and formulated the development and establishment of educational guidelines to help inform the final FMP strategic direction.

Phase II Methodology

In January 2016, the E+FA team undertook an aggressive schedule, details of which follow.

• BuildBPS team confirmed floor plans and site plan prior to assessments
• Meeting One:
• Attendees: BPS, PFD, facility staff, and SMMA team
• Intent: Half-day meeting to, at minimum, review plans and building “history,” recent investments, ongoing problem areas, and other considerations with facility’s staff
• Facility Assessment Team Composition:
• Architectural: Conducted 4-hour on-site visit (1/2 hour with principal or other staff familiar with facility); scanned and digitized one-line plans; and photographed and recorded observations using assessment tool.
• Structural: Reviewed visible structural systems only; and reported on general era of construction (seismic and adaptability).
• HVAC/MEP: Conducted 4-hour site visit; and reported on systems condition and adaptability
• Site/Civil: Reviewed site assets and general quality of physical conditions of the immediate school site
• EFE Assessment Team Composition:
• Educational Planners: Conducted 4-hour on-site visit (1/2 hour with principal or other staff familiar with facility); scanned and digitized one-line plans; created state standards/MSBA-based space templates (broad spatial categories and “bottom line” only)
• Site/Civil: Reviewed site educational assets and general quality of the immediate community surroundings, including transportation and civic assets
• Meeting Two:
• Attendees: BPS, PFD, facility staff, and SMMA with the facility subcommittee
• Intent: Review initial findings, site area and constraints, net-to-gross building area, and space summary findings; validate relative accuracy of plans; compare/confirm BPS and MSBA data; complete evaluation forms; and assign preliminary building and systems physical conditions ratings.

Phase II Critical Information

• Confirmed that conducting evaluations during occupied hours was most effective approach for understanding the facilities in their totality.
• Confirmed that floor plan information and net and gross areas are out of date or mostly inaccurate.
• Confirmed notion of using operational data to inform BPS and the City of building suitability and long-term investment potential. The collection of the operational data will be an ongoing BPS task, and its inclusion and evaluation will warrant further analysis by the City.

Phase II Portfolio Observations

• Although BPS has buildings with available “seats,” capacity for students is highly dispersed due to geography, school quality, coherent pathways, and desire/requests. Available seats must also specifically consider grade typology and a building’s appropriateness to meet the educational program.
• The middle school grades are particularly challenging, for a number of reasons (e.g., multiple grade configurations, advanced work classes, pathways, and school assignment policies, etc.).
• Confirmed that renovation work was often short of full code compliance, particularly relative to distribution and piping systems.
• Confirmed that many older facilities lack adequate ventilation.
• Confirmed that most facilities do not fully comply with MAAB/ADA requirements, due to building age and renovation dates predating current compliance requirements.
• Confirmed that many program spaces are undersized or missing by 21st century standards.
• Confirmed that many programs tend to be “fit” into the existing buildings and spaces, often inappropriately so.

Phase III: The Main Assessment Phase

With all aspects of the master plan process underway, and the process itself tested and confirmed, the BuildBPS team was ready to commence with the remaining portfolio of buildings. This process took place over a three-month period, during which schools were both populated and vacant due to summer vacation scheduling.

Phase III Methodology

From April through June 2016, the E+FA team undertook an aggressive schedule, details of which follow.

• SMMA confirmed floor plans with BPS during assessments
• SMMA confirmed site plans during assessments
• Meeting One:
• Attendees: BPS, PFD, facility staff, and SMMA
• Intent: Establish schedule with BPS to minimize schedule conflicts
• Facility Assessment Team Composition:
• Architectural: Conducted 2-hour on-site visit (1/2 hour with principal or other staff familiar with facility); photographed and recorded observations using assessment tool.
• Structural: reviewed visible structural systems only; and reported on general era of construction (seismic and adaptability).
• HVAC/MEP: Conducted 2-hour site visit; and reported on systems condition and adaptability.
• Site/Civil: Reviewed site assets and general quality of physical conditions of the immediate school site.
• EFE Assessment Team Composition:
• Educational Planners: 2-hour on-site visit (Full 2 hours with principal or other staff familiar with school operations); scan and digitize one-line plans; Massachusetts 963 CMR guidelines space analysis.
• Site/Civil: Reviewed site educational assets and general quality of the immediate community surroundings, including transportation and civic assets.
• Meeting Two:
• Attendees: BPS, PFD, facility staff, and SMMA management meeting with the facility subcommittee. Intent: Review initial findings using Tableau visualizations, complete evaluation forms, and assign preliminary building and systems physical conditions ratings.