APS Committee's Report Doesn't Square With Architects
By Maureen M. Walter, AIA
American Institute of Architects
As president of the Albuquerque chapter of the American Institute of Architects, I am responding to your recent article reporting the findings of the Albuquerque Public Schools Community Oversight Committee (COC).
As architects and citizens of this community, we are very supportive of designing and building school facilities using efficient and cost-effective processes. Our mission is to provide school facilities that are within budgets for construction and operations and that serve to inspire, educate, and safeguard the children of this community.
The COC report makes many generalized conclusions based on inaccurate information. Because of these inaccuracies, its soundness as a tool for reform must be questioned. To my knowledge, no member of the COC contacted the architects involved with the projects cited in their report.
The Dec. 13 Summary Report states that APS does not dictate the construction budget for a new school, but rather the design architect provides the budget to APS.
This is not APS policy, nor has it ever been. As the architect for the recent classroom addition to Desert Ridge Middle School, I can say that it was APS that dictated the construction budget from the very beginning, not the other way around. Architects are held accountable to meet construction budgets. In fact, the contract requires that if the project bids over the budget, the architect must redesign the project (with no additional fee) to bring the project into budget.
This project, and the majority of projects designed for APS are designed and constructed within the stated budgets.
The COC report also states that "the time allotted to prepare the architectural and engineering design for new school construction is excessive." The example cited is the new Manzano Mesa Elementary School, and the report states that the architect took 468 working days to prepare bid documents.
The implication is that the architect spent 468 days of labor to complete this project, which is not the case. In truth, when the contract was signed, only funds for design were approved. Construction funds were to be approved by the February 2002 bond election. The design for the project was complete by November 2001, well in advance of the bond election date. No delays in starting the construction were caused by the architect.
The report asserts that "the current procedure of selectively awarding these (design) contracts so that all design firms get a piece of the action rather than awarding design contracts based on performance is not conducive to performance driven efficiency."
In fact, architects must provide detailed information on their past performance with similar projects, including their record of meeting budgets and schedules, and explanations of change orders during construction. A point system is used to evaluate each architect's qualifications.
This is not a process that arbitrarily awards all firms a "piece of the action" as stated in the COC's report.
The COC does not reference sources that support its claim that architect's fees are higher than national guidelines. According to the Council of Educational Facility Planners International, average fees paid to architects nationally for new school design range between 5 and 8 percent. The APS fee schedule ranges between 4.5 and 5.5 percent. Additional fees to provide construction administration services can add 2 to 2.75 percent, which makes the total fee percentage very close to national averages.
The report concludes that the cost of APS schools is 20-50 percent higher than comparable school districts, but it is unclear how the COC derived this information.
While benchmarking of construction costs is an effective means to setting budgets, it is important that similar comparisons are made. Because there are so many variables involved in making these comparisons, further analysis is needed to provide meaningful information.
The architects who contract with APS are well-qualified to design school facilities— many of them provide services to public school districts throughout New Mexico, other Southwestern states and nationally.
These professionals can serve as a valuable resource in assisting Albuquerque Public Schools in improving the design and construction process to the benefit of the children, teachers, and taxpayers of Albuquerque.
opinion 
...go to bookmarks
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
