In today’s challenging economic climate for education, Pennsylvania public school districts face complex choices when it comes to addressing deferred maintenance and construction projects.
Many school buildings were constructed 40, 50, and even 60 years ago, and their layouts no longer fit today’s educational programs. Combine that with aging infrastructure that has exceeded its useful life and lacks modern-day efficiency, and state subsidies that are shrinking every year, and you have a recipe for costly, inadequate facilities. How does a school district address these issues as well as the constantly growing list of deferred maintenance needs in this time of severe budget constraints?
One tool school districts have to address these questions is a Hybrid Construction project by Reynolds.
What is hybrid construction?
Hybrid construction methodology is the use of guaranteed energy savings act (GESA) in conjunction with traditional design/bid/build public procurement methodology.
What are the benefits of hybrid construction?
- Expedited construction and project implementation minimizes construction-related interruptions, allowing the teacher and student to maintain daily routines and focus on academic achievement.
- Subcontractors are selected based on best-value methodology, rather than low bid.
- Project soft costs are lower.
Where does hybrid construction methodology fit?
Two approaches to hybrid construction
1. Reynolds’ Hybrid Approach
- Construction cost reductions
- Provides independent review of feasibility study options
- The choices for scope and delivery method are not limited
- No change orders (on GESA scope)
- Single-source accountability
- Guaranteed energy savings to offset financing payments
- Additional construction savings due to improved project schedule and optimal bidding strategies
- Sub-contractors selected from local community based on best value and high-quality and provides the advantage of competitive pricing without the risk of sub-standard low bidders
2. Traditional ESCo Approach
- Higher project costs due to lack of competitive bidding
- Guaranteed energy savings may be overstated or stipulated in contract
- Most ESCos have limited K12 project experience – usually as a 2nd or 3rd tier subcontractor
- Little to no experience with general construction and site work
- Provide proprietary solutions of products they sell
Additional Project Risks:
- No independent review of feasibility study options
- Limited construction and design cost savings