District of Columbia
Planned Funding and Schedule for D.C. Public Schools' Modernization Program Are Unrealistic Gao ID: GAO-02-815R July 25, 2002In April 2002, GAO testified on the major challenges facing the District of Columbia Public School system faces in modernizing and renovating the District's schools (see GAO-02-628T). The school system, with the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has made considerable progress in making emergency repairs during the past few years. However, the school system now faces the more complex task of modernizing--either through renovation or through new construction--virtually every public school in the District of Columbia. As a result, the school system must adopt a modernization program that will cost significantly more and take longer to accomplish than originally projected. In addition, the school system faces the challenge of ensuring that sufficient funds are budgeted for asbestos management activities.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-02-815R, District of Columbia: Planned Funding and Schedule for D.C. Public Schools' Modernization Program Are Unrealistic
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-815R
entitled 'District of Columbia: Planned Funding and Schedule for D.C.
Public Schools‘ Modernization Program Are Unrealistic' which was
released on July 25, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 25, 2002:
Dr. Paul Vance:
Superintendent:
District of Columbia Public Schools:
825 North Capitol Street, NE:
Suite 9026:
Washington, D.C. 20002-1994:
Subject: District of Columbia: Planned Funding and Schedule for D.C.
Public Schools‘ Modernization Program Are Unrealistic:
Dear Dr. Vance:
On April 25, 2002, we testified before the House Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia, Committee on Appropriations, on the major
challenges the school system faces in modernizing and renovating the
District‘s schools. [Footnote 1] As we noted, the District of Columbia
school system, with the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(the Corps) under various support agreements, has made considerable
progress in making emergency repairs over the past few years. However,
the school system now faces the more complex task of modernizing”either
through renovation or through new construction”virtually every public
school in the District of Columbia. As a result, the school system must
come to grips with a modernization program that will cost significantly
more and take longer to accomplish than originally projected. In
addition, the school system faces the challenge of ensuring that
sufficient funds are budgeted for asbestos management activities.
This report makes recommendations concerning the modernization program
and asbestos funding.
Modernization Projects Are Costing More and Taking Longer Than Planned:
As stated in our testimony, we found that the estimated cost to execute
the modernization effort has increased significantly since the facility
master plan was approved in December 2000. [Footnote 2] In addition, the
schools are taking longer to build than planned. Our review of the
school system‘s November 2001 revised spending plan shows that the
school system estimated it would need $848 million more than the
available funding in the approved capital program for fiscal years 2002
through 2007.
The school system‘s revised estimates were the result of significant
cost increases in the modernization program. The $848 million cost
increase included (1) rising costs to modernize the schools found in
the capital program; (2) costs for schools added to the revised
spending plan; and (3) added costs attributable to such things as
component repairs, mandates, and small capital projects. Table 1
illustrates the gap between the initial and revised funding needs.
Table 1: Comparison of the Revised Spending Plan and Original Budget
(Dollars in thousands):
FY 02:
Revised: $193,717;
Original: $174,163;
Difference: ($19,554).
FY 03:
Revised: $327,486;
Original: $183,461;
Difference: ($144,025).
FY 04:
Revised: $335,843;
Original: $168,406;
Difference: ($167,437).
FY 05:
Revised: $362,595;
Original: $172,626;
Difference: ($189,969).
FY06:
Revised: $281,347;
Original: $148,722;
Difference: ($132,625).
FY 07:
Revised: $215,915;
Original: $21,115;
Difference: ($194,800).
Total:
Revised: $1,716,903;
Original: $868,493;
Difference: ($848,410).
[End of table]
These cost increases present a significant challenge. On March 22,
2002, the District‘s Office of the Chief Financial Officer advised the
school system that due to the District‘s current debt position and
limited borrowing capacity, it must meet its capital program within its
currently approved budget. School officials are considering options to
deal with the cost increases, such as reducing the scope and design of
the projects, obtaining a greater share of the city‘s capital budget,
and taking advantage of alternative financing mechanisms, including
public-private partnerships. However, such a huge increase will likely
result in stretching out the modernization program.
In its capital program, approved June 2002, the District set aside an
additional $39 million for the school system‘s fiscal year 2003 capital
budget, increasing the original budget from $183 million to $222
million. Even with the additional funding, however, the school system
still has $105 million less than it estimated it would need in its
revised spending plan. Furthermore, the school system faces a funding
shortfall of $167 million for 2004 and, as noted in table 1, shortfalls
continue through the outyears.
Most of the first 22 schools in the school system‘s modernization
program will not meet the schedules established in the facility master
plan. Generally, 3 to 4 years are required to plan, design the schools,
and complete construction. The school system compressed these time
frames to meet the master plan‘s construction completion dates.
However, in most cases, the compressed time frames have not been met.
Currently, only 7 of the 22 schools are meeting their planned
construction completion dates.
School System Has Not Budgeted Adequate Funds for Asbestos Management:
Based on past experience and ongoing requirements, the school system‘s
current level of funding to meet asbestos management needs is
insufficient. In September 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) notified the District of Columbia of serious issues of
noncompliance with federal asbestos law at the public schools. To deal
with the issues raised by EPA, the school system sought assistance from
the Corps in fiscal year 1999. As of February 2002, the Corps had spent
$60.5 million on asbestos management and abatement activities in the
schools. However, the school system‘s fiscal year 2002 through 2007
capital improvement plan included only $1 million per year for asbestos
management. During fiscal year 2002, the school system identified an
additional $12 million to fund asbestos activities, which is barely
sufficient to maintain ongoing contracts for asbestos management
through the end of the fiscal year.
The June 2002 budget contains $9.5 million for asbestos management in
fiscal year 2003, but nothing is budgeted for asbestos for fiscal years
2004 though 2008. Corps officials estimate that about $17 million per
year is needed to (1) maintain compliance with federal requirements to
keep asbestos management plans updated, (2) conduct assessments of
asbestos areas before starting renovation work, and (3) manage asbestos
abatements.
Conclusion:
The current school system modernization program does not reflect the
realities of a program that is costing significantly more and taking
longer to accomplish than originally planned. Further, given the
District‘s current debt position, there is no assurance that additional
funding will be forthcoming. Starting to build new schools has provided
the school system with valuable experience concerning its cost and
schedule projections. The school system has an opportunity to use this
experience to create plans that are more realistic and feasible. In
addition, without an appropriate level of funding for asbestos
management, the school system risks not being able to address asbestos
hazards and not complying with federal law. The school system has taken
a reactive approach to asbestos management by funding activities only
in the short-term and not budgeting sufficiently for future asbestos
management needs.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend you ensure that (1) the school system‘s modernization
program is revised to reflect cost, schedule, and budget realities and
(2) all necessary asbestos management activities are adequately funded.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The District‘s Chief Financial Officer and the Office of the
Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools (the school
system) provided written comments on a draft of this report. The Corps
of Engineers commented orally on the draft report and took no exception
to our recommendations. We have revised the draft report as appropriate
based on these comments.
The Chief Financial Officer generally agreed with the draft report. He
stated that it is an unfortunate reality that the school modernization
program will cost significantly more and take longer to accomplish than
projected. He stated that his office has worked closely with the school
system to revise and update its cost estimates and spending plans and
will continue aggressively exploring different options to meet the
school system‘s needs. He acknowledged that it was known when the
school modernization began that the proposed financing of the
facilities master plan was aggressive and in the out-years would
present a challenge using traditional financing methods. The letter from
the Chief Financial Officer appears in enclosure II.
The school system objected to our draft report, stating that our
recommendations have already been implemented and that we ignore the
many potentially productive solutions that are available to address the
funding shortfalls. The school system seems to have misconstrued our
report, which recommends adjustments to the modernization program and
asbestos funding to reflect realities. While it may have taken some
actions in the short-term to address the immediate fiscal year 2003
shortfall, the school system has not addressed the looming shortfalls
that will occur over the next several years. Accordingly, we continue
to believe the school system should revise its modernization program to
reflect the cost, schedule, and funding realities it faces. The school
system‘s letter appears in enclosure III, along with our detailed
evaluation.
Scope and Methodology:
To assess the cost of the school system‘s modernization program, we
compared the cost projections for fiscal years 2002 through 2007 in the
June 2001 approved budget, which were based on the facility master
plan, to the cost projections in the school system‘s November 2001
revised plan. Because the District‘s capital plans require 6-year
budget projections, we focused our work on this period of time. To
determine whether the pace of the program was on schedule, we compared
the projected construction completion dates in the facility master plan
for the first 22 schools with the current estimated completion dates
from Corps and school system officials. Since our testimony given in
April 2002, we have monitored the most significant events pertaining to
the school system‘s modernization program, such as analyzing the
capital budget that was approved in June 2002 and accounting for the
increased funding of $39 million provided to the school system‘s
capital program by the city for fiscal year 2003.
To assess the funding provided for asbestos management activities, we
analyzed the Corps‘s costs over the years to update asbestos management
plans, assess asbestos problems and design possible solutions, and
contain and remove the asbestos from the schools and facilities. We
compared what the Corps had spent to what the school system planned to
spend in the fiscal year 2002 through 2007 budget and the revised
spending plan. In conducting these analyses, we focused our attention on
asbestos funding needed for component repairs. We interviewed school
system and Corps officials regarding their views on the funding needed
for asbestos management activities. We also held discussions with
officials from EPA‘s Region III.
We performed our work from May to June 2002 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, House Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, as well as
other interested congressional committees; the Mayor of the District of
Columbia; the Chief Financial Officer, District of Columbia; the
Chairman of the City Council; the President of the District of Columbia
Board of Education; and the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We also will make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me at (202) 512-4181 if you or your staff has questions
regarding this report. An additional contact and other major
contributors are listed in enclosure IV.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
David E. Cooper:
Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
Enclosures:
[End of correspondence]
Enclosure I: Testimony:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m.
Thursday, April 25, 2002:
District Of Columbia:
D.C. Public Schools‘ Modernization Program Faces Major Challenges:
Statement of David E. Cooper:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
GAO-02-628T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me to participate in today‘s hearing. At your
request, we have been evaluating the District of Columbia‘s plans to
modernize and renovate its public schools. In the past few years, the
school system, with the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(the Corps), has made considerable progress in fixing roofs, replacing
windows, repairing bathrooms, and addressing maintenance projects that
had been neglected for years.
Now that many of the emergency repairs have been completed, the school
system is turning its attention to the more complex task of
modernizing” either through renovation or through new construction”
virtually every public school in the District of Columbia. In fact,
several new school construction projects are underway. My remarks will
focus on challenges the school system faces in this formidable task.
Specifically, I will address:
* increases in the cost of modernizing the schools;
* delays in completing the schools;
* quality inspection problems, and;
* concerns about managing asbestos hazards.
Background:
In April 1998, the school system entered into a memorandum of agreement
with the Corps for engineering, procurement, and technical assistance
to ensure that construction contracts were awarded and managed so that
the schools could open that year. Under the Fiscal Year 1999 District
of Columbia Appropriations Act, Congress expanded the Corps‘ role by
authorizing it to provide the school system with engineering,
construction, and related services. Through the years, the school
system has renewed its working relationship with the Corps by signing
yearly updates to the support agreement.
To modernize the schools, the school system generally plans to build a
new school and demolish the old one or to completely renovate an entire
school. The Corps and the school system each have responsibility for
managing a certain number of new school modernization projects. Because
all of the schools are not modernized at the same time, component
replacements are needed to replace major building systems” such as
boilers, chillers, roofs, and windows”that have reached the end of
their useful lives. The Corps has taken responsibility for the majority
of these projects. In the past, the school system used an area-wide
utility contract with the Washington Gas Light Company to perform some
types of repairs, such as electrical, heating, and air conditioning
work, painting, and carpeting. We reported in September 2001 that the
school system had improperly used this contract. [Footnote 3] The
school system is no longer using Washington Gas and has taken steps to
implement new contracting mechanisms for this work.
Modernization Projects Are Costing More Than Planned:
In December 2000, the District of Columbia Board of Education approved
a facility master plan to rebuild and update the District‘s public
schools. It is an ambitious plan calling for the modernization of 10
schools annually over a 10- to 15-year period. Based on this plan, a
$1.3 billion capital budget to modernize the public schools was
approved in June 2001. However, in November 2001, the school system
revised its spending plan. Because the District‘s capital plans require
6-year budget projections, we evaluated the fiscal year 2002 through
2007 projections in the approved budget and in the revised plan. We
found that the cost to execute the modernization effort has increased
significantly”about $848 million in the 6-year period. Figure 1 shows
how the costs have increased over the period.
Figure 1: Comparison of the School System‘s Approved Budget and Revised
Plan (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph that illustrates a comparison of
the school system‘s approved budget and revised plan. The vertical axis
of the graph represents dollars in millions from 0 to 400. The
horizontal axis of the graph represents year from 2002 to 2007. Two
lines are depicted, representing:
District of Columbia approved capital improvement plan;
District of Columbia Public Schools' revised plan.
The revised plan costs are significantly higher in all points on the
graph.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
According to school system officials, costs increased for a number of
reasons, including the following:
* historically significant buildings cannot be razed and have to be
redesigned at higher costs;
* experience to date shows that construction costs are running
significantly higher than the estimates used in the facility master
plan, and;
* the scope has been expanded for some projects to recognize community
needs for special facilities.
As an indication of how costs are increasing, we reviewed the cost
estimates in the facility master plan and the revised estimates for the
first 22 schools to be modernized. [Footnote 4] These schools are
currently in the planning, design, or construction phase. We found that
the costs for these schools have increased by about $170 million.
Appendix I lists the original and revised estimates for the 22 schools.
These cost increases present a significant challenge. On March 22,
2002, the District‘s Office of the Chief Financial Officer advised the
school system that due to the District‘s current debt position and
limited borrowing capacity, it must meet its capital improvement needs
within its currently approved budget. School system officials are
considering options to deal with the cost increases. However, such a
huge increase will likely result in stretching out the modernization
program. If that happens, some schools will have to be maintained
longer than currently planned, which will add costs to a program that
is already over budget.
Modernization Efforts Are Taking Longer Than Planned:
The facility master plan approved by the Board of Education set
ambitious completion dates for modernizing the schools. Generally, 3 to
4 years are required to conduct feasibility studies, [Footnote 5]
design the schools, and complete construction. To meet the master
plan‘s construction completion dates, time frames were compressed.
However, most of the first 22 schools to be modernized will not be
completed on time. Recognizing that the schedule in the facility master
plan cannot be achieved, school system and Corps officials are
developing more realistic schedules for some of the schools. Appendix
II contains a list of the first 22 schools with facility master plan
and current completion dates. It shows that:
* 10 schools are experiencing delays ranging from 3 to 15 months;
* 1 is ahead of schedule;
* 3 are on time, and;
* the schedules for 5 schools are being revised.
In addition, three schools are ahead of the facility master plan
schedule, but they have not met accelerated schedules established by
the school system and Corps. The scheduled construction completion
dates for four elementary schools”Key, Miner, Randle Highlands, and
Barnard”were accelerated to show the community tangible results
quickly. Accelerated completion of the schools involves a high-risk
acquisition strategy. For example, in some cases, construction began
before the designs were complete. The accelerated schedule also
required at least $700,000 in additional costs. None of the 4 schools
have met the accelerated schedule. The delays in meeting the
accelerated schedules were caused by difficulties in obtaining required
permits from other District agencies, incorrect assumptions about the
time required to get materials, design changes, and a bid protest. At
Key elementary, persistent contractor performance problems continue to
delay completion of the project.
Our work also shows that delays have occurred with some repair
projects. For example, completion dates for 9 boiler replacement
projects slipped from October 2001 to March 2002 and 1 slipped to
August 2002. [Footnote 6] Also, 17 of 22 bathroom renovation projects
were delayed. [Footnote 7] Reasons for the delays in the boiler and
bathroom projects included problems in obtaining required permits, time
required for asbestos inspections and removal, and a contract award
protest.
Concerns about Quality Inspections:
In our September 2001 report to you, we raised a number of concerns
about the school system‘s use of a Washington Gas Light Company
contract, including concerns about quality inspections. In a follow-up
to our report, we examined the gas company‘s records of quality
inspections for the work it managed for the school system. From August
2000 through March 2001, the school system paid Washington Gas $25
million for 609 repair projects. Based on the results of a random
sample of projects, we estimate that 77 percent of all projects lacked
evidence that quality inspections were performed. [Footnote 8] Without
evidence of inspections, the school system has no assurance that the
work was properly completed and its money was well-spent.
School system officials advised us that they are negotiating with the
company about the fee they paid the company to manage the repair
projects.
Concerns about Managing Asbestos Hazards:
To ensure compliance with legal requirements, the school system must be
ever vigilant in dealing with asbestos problems. In September 1998, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notified the District of Columbia
of serious issues of noncompliance with federal asbestos law at the
public schools. EPA‘s primary concern was the lack of required asbestos
management plans and periodic updates of the plans at each school. The
plans are required to show where asbestos is located in the schools so
that it will not be accidentally disturbed. To deal with the issues
raised by EPA, the school system sought assistance from the Corps in
fiscal year 1999. The Corps helped achieve compliance with EPA
requirements and, as of February 2002, had spent $60.5 million on
asbestos management and abatement activities in the schools.
From October 1999 through May 2001, 13 inadvertent asbestos releases
occurred in the schools. Most of these releases were caused when
contractors and school custodians failed to consult the asbestos
management plans and to follow proper procedures for dealing with
asbestos in the schools. [Footnote 9] According to District of Columbia
Department of Health officials, asbestos tests at the schools revealed
that, while some of the releases were serious, the health of District
school children was not affected.
Concerns remain about whether the school system plans to adequately
fund continued compliance with asbestos mandates and additional
asbestos management activities. In addition, the Department of Health
did not promptly pursue enforcement actions against the contractors who
were at fault for the asbestos releases.
The school system‘s fiscal year 2002 to 2007 capital improvement plan
includes only $1 million per year for asbestos management. Based on
past experience and ongoing requirements, this level of funding is
insufficient to meet asbestos management needs. According to Corps
officials, a much higher level of funding is needed to (1) maintain
compliance with EPA requirements to keep the asbestos management plans
updated, (2) conduct assessments of asbestos areas before starting
renovation work, and (3) manage asbestos abatements.
The school system identified an additional $12 million from other
sources to fund asbestos activities for this year. However, Corps
officials told us they need an additional $1.6 million by mid-May or
they will have to curtail some of their asbestos activities. They also
estimate that asbestos activities will require about $17 million in
fiscal year 2003.
Our review of asbestos activities also raises concerns about the
Department of Health‘s role in taking enforcement action against
contractors who failed to (1) follow the asbestos management plans in
the schools before starting renovation work and (2) properly deal with
asbestos-containing materials once the releases occurred. Department of
Health officials told us that they did not pursue enforcement actions
because the Department‘s inspectors had not collected adequate
documentation. [Footnote 10] Specifically, inspection reports had not
been prepared which would have included information on laboratory
reports, the sequence of events and key players, a technical analysis
of the information collected at the scene, and a record of witness
interviews.
After our inquiries, Department of Health attorneys began looking into
some of the 13 incidents where contractor errors caused the asbestos
releases. After gathering additional documentation from the Corps,
earlier this month the Department issued a notice of noncompliance and
fined the contractors involved in one of the release incidents. The
Department plans to issue additional notices soon. Department officials
told us that noncompliance notices will be issued for such things as
failures to:
* notify the District and receive proper approval to start a renovation
project involving asbestos materials;
* obtain and pay for an asbestos abatement license;
* show evidence of proper asbestos abatement training;
* provide protective clothing for employees engaged in asbestos
abatement;
* display caution signs, and;
* enclose work areas with airtight plastic sheeting.
The Department of Health also plans to train its inspectors on the
types of documentation they need to prepare, such as inspection
reports, to enable contractor violations to be promptly pursued.
Our work also shows that communication between the Department of
Health, the Corps, and the school system needs to be improved. In some
cases, the Department of Health was unaware of asbestos releases in the
schools. Department of Health officials told us that they are working
to improve communications with the school system and the Corps and
increase the Department‘s oversight of renovation work being done in
the schools.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the school system, with the Corps of
Engineers‘ assistance, has accomplished much in the last few years.
However, it must now come to grips with a modernization program that
will cost significantly more and take longer to accomplish than
originally projected. We believe the school system needs to revise its
modernization plans to reflect these realities. We also believe the
school system needs to fully fund asbestos management activities this
year and ensure that sufficient funding is budgeted in future years.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information about our work or the issues discussed in this
statement, please contact David E. Cooper at (202) 512-4841. We will
make copies of this statement available to other interested parties
upon request. This testimony is also available on GAO‘s Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. This effort was conducted under the
direction of Michele Mackin. Other individuals making key contributions
were Charles D. Groves, John D. Heere, Gary L. Middleton, William
Petrick, Jr., Russell R. Reiter, Rebecca L. Shea, and Adam Vodraska.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Original and Current Cost Estimates for First 22 Schools to
be Modernized (dollars in millions):
School:
Key Elementary ;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $8.7;
Current estimate[B]: $11.9;
Increase: $3.2.
School: Randle Highlands Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $14.2;
Current estimate[B]: $20.8;
Increase: $6.6.
School: Barnard Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $12.8;
Current estimate[B]: $23.9;
Increase: $11.1.
School: Miner Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $15.3;
Current estimate[B]: $22.0;
Increase: $6.7.
School: Kelly-Miller Middle;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $20.6;
Current estimate[B]: $25.2;
Increase: $4.6.
School: Patterson Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $14.0;
Current estimate[B]: $18.3;
Increase: $4.3.
School: Noyes Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $10.2;
Current estimate[B]: $16.5;
Increase: $6.3.
School: Cleveland Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $9.1;
Current estimate[B]: $12.2;
Increase: $3.1.
School: McKinley Technology High;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $44.7;
Current estimate[B]: $52.0;
Increase: $7.3.
School: Thomson Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $10.6;
Current estimate[B]: $17.3;
Increase: $6.7.
School: Bell/Lincoln High;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $40.0;
Current estimate[B]: $63.0;
Increase: $23.0.
School: Phelps High[C];
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $0.0;
Current estimate[B]: $26.0;
Increase: $26.0.
School: Birney Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $11.3;
Current estimate[B]: $21.2;
Increase: $9.9.
School: Thomas Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $10.8;
Current estimate[B]: $15.6;
Increase: $4.8.
School: Walker Jones Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $16.4;
Current estimate[B]: $22.3;
Increase: %5.9.
School: Wheatley Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $9.9;
Current estimate[B]: $18.0;
Increase: $8.1.
School: Luke Moore High;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $10.9;
Current estimate[B]: $15.1;
Increase: $4.2.
School: Woodson High;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $42.7;
Current estimate[B]: $50.2;
Increase: $7.5.
School: Brightwood Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $10.9;
Current estimate[B]: $18.5;
Increase: $7.6.
School: Cooke Elementary;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $14.0;
Current estimate[B]: $19.3;
Increase: $5.3.
School: Hardy Middle;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $20.6;
Current estimate[B]: $24.9;
Increase: $4.3.
School: Sousa Middle;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $17.1;
Current estimate[B]: $20.1;
Increase: $3.0.
School: Total;
Cost in facility master plan[A]: $364.8;
Current estimate[B]: $534.3;
Increase: $169.5.
[A] Cost reported in the facility master plan dated December 20, 2000.
[B] Estimates reported in the fiscal year 2003-2008 capital spending
plan dated November 30, 2001.
[C] Phelps High School was not listed in the December 2000 facility
master plan as a planned renovation.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Original and Current Schedules for First 22 Schools to be
Modernized:
School: Key Elementary[C];
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2002;
Current completion date[B]: December 2002;
Delay (months): 3.
School: Randle-Highlands Elementary[C];
Facility master plan completion date[A]: April 2003;
Current completion date[B]: August 2002;
Delay (months): 8 months early.
School: Barnard Elementary[C];
Facility master plan completion date[A]: April 2003;
Current completion date[B]: November 2002;
Delay (months): 5 months early.
School: Miner Elementary[C];
Facility master plan completion date[A]: April 2003;
Current completion date[B]: December 2002;
Delay (months): 4 months early.
School: Kelly-Miller Middle;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: April 2003;
Current completion date[B]: July 2003;
Delay (months): 3.
School: Patterson Elementary;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: July 2003;
Current completion date[B]: July 2003;
Delay (months): 0.
School: Noyes Elementary;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: July 2003;
Current completion date[B]: July 2003;
Delay (months): 0.
School: Cleveland Elementary;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: July 2003;
Current completion date[B]: July 2003;
Delay (months): 0.
School: McKinley Technology High;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2003;
Current completion date[B]: May 2004;
Delay (months): 8.
School: Thomson Elementary;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: July 2003;
Current completion date[B]: December 2003;
Delay (months): 5.
School: Bell/Lincoln High;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2003;
Current completion date[B]: July 2004;
Delay (months): 10.
School: Phelps High;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: [D];
Current completion date[B]: Unknown;
Delay (months): Not applicable.
School: Birney Elementary;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2003;
Current completion date[B]: December 2004;
Delay (months): 15.
School: Thomas Elementary;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2003;
Current completion date[B]: July 2004;
Delay (months): 10.
School: Walker Jones Elementary;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2003;
Current completion date[B]: July 2004;
Delay (months): 10.
School: Wheatley Elementary;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2003;
Current completion date[B]: July 2004;
Delay (months): 10.
School: Luke Moore High;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2004;
Current completion date[B]: July 2004;
Delay (months): 2 months early.
School: Woodson High;
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2005;
Current completion date[B]: December 2005;
Delay (months): 3.
School: Brightwood Elementary[E];
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2003;
Current completion date[B]: Unknown;
Delay (months): Unknown.
School: Cooke Elementary[E];
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2003;
Current completion date[B]: Unknown;
Delay (months): Unknown.
School: Hardy Middle[E];
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2004;
Current completion date[B]: Unknown;
Delay (months): Unknown.
School: Sousa Middle[E];
Facility master plan completion date[A]: September 2004;
Current completion date[B]: Unknown;
Delay (months): Unknown.
[A] Completion dates reported in the facility master plan dated
December 20, 2000.
[B] Completion dates in Army Corps of Engineers status reports as of
April 11, 2002.
[C] At the request of the school system, the schedules for these
schools were fast tracked for completion by July 2002.
[D] Phelps was not included in the original facility master plan.
[E] Current completion estimates are under review.
[End of table]
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure II: Comments from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
Government of the District of Columbia:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
Natwar M. Gandhi:
Chief Financial Officer:
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 209:
Washington, DC 20004:
(202) 727-2476:
[hyperlink, http://www.dccfo.com]:
July 9, 2002:
Mr. David F. Cooper:
Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Cooper:
I am writing this letter to provide my comments about the draft report
entitled "District of Columbia - Planned Funding and Schedule for D.C.
Public Schools' Modernization Program Are Unrealistic." We are
generally in agreement with your draft report. I will briefly discuss
the FY 2003 budget development process relative to the Capital
Improvements Program, followed by a discussion about the challenges we
face in funding the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS)
modernization program.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer, in partnership with the
Executive Office of the Mayor and the Council of the District of
Columbia, recently completed the District's FY 2003 Proposed Budget and
Financial Plan and the FY 2003 ” FY 2008 Capital budget. In light of
the events of September 11, the FY 2003 budget development process was
extremely challenging because many financial indicators are down and
the outlook for the local economy is weak. Our analysis indicated that
any further capital borrowing to finance new capital projects is not
fiscally prudent. Therefore, we were forced to scale back the capital
program. Agencies prioritized their programs/projects and were required
to identify areas to absorb an overall 15.5 percent budget cut in
capital funding. The cost savings generated from the reductions were
used to finance the most critical ongoing projects. Having recognized
the progress and momentum already achieved, DCPS was not affected by
the budget reduction.
When the Facilities Master Plan was developed and adopted by the school
board, the Mayor was committed to fully funding the program. Today,
that commitment is unchanged. Because the District, in past years,
lacked the financial resources to maintain its overall infrastructure,
many of its facilities, including DCPS, are in dire need of renovations
and/or modernization.
At the beginning of the modernization effort, we knew that the proposed
financing of the facilities master plan was aggressive and in the out-
years would present a challenge using traditional financing methods. In
spite of that, the chart below clearly shows that DCPS receives the
largest percentage of capital dollars with the exception of the
Department of Public Works, which includes the Federal Highway Trust
program.
Table 1. Percentage of Capital Dollar allocated by Agency (%):
Agency: Property Management;
FY 2000: 7;
FY 2001: 1;
FY 2002: 2;
FY 2003: 3.
Agency: WMATA;
FY 2000: 9;
FY 2001: 7;
FY 2002: 6;
FY 2003: 6.
Agency: Chief Technology Officer;
FY 2000: 5;
FY 2001: 3;
FY 2002: 10;
FY 2003: 14.
Agency: Mental Health;
FY 2000: 6;
FY 2001: 3;
FY 2002: 5;
FY 2003: 4.
Agency: MPD;
FY 2000: 9;
FY 2001: 3;
FY 2002: 4;
FY 2003: 4.
Agency: DC Public Schools;
FY 2000: 41;
FY 2001: 24;
FY 2002: 16;
FY 2003: 35.
Agency: Chief Financial Officer;
FY 2000: 0;
FY 2001: 1;
FY 2002: 2;
FY 2003: 5.
Agency: Parks and Recreation;
FY 2000: 5;
FY 2001: 4;
FY 2002: 6;
FY 2003: 5.
Agency: Department of Housing;
FY 2000: 0;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 2;
FY 2003: 3.
Agency: Public Works - Federal Highway;
FY 2000: 0;
FY 2001: 45;
FY 2002: 34;
FY 2003: 6*.
Agency: Other;
FY 2000: 18;
FY 2001: 9;
FY 2002: 13;
FY 2003: 15.
* The FY 2003 Public Works allocation represents the new Department of
Transportation and does not include the Federal Highway Trust.
[End of table]
The fact that the modernization program will cost significantly more
and take longer to accomplish than originally projected is an
unfortunate reality. My staff, however, has worked very closely with
DCPS to revise and update their cost estimates and spending plans. In
addition, we provided technical assistance outlining the policies and
procedures on redirections, reprogrammings and reallocations. Moreover,
we will continue aggressively exploring different options to meet DCPS
needs.
The citizens of the District of Columbia deserve and expect first class
facilities conducive for learning. My office, under the leadership of
the Mayor, is committed to making that a reality. I would like to thank
you for this opportunity to share my comments, and if further
clarification is required, please do not hesitate to contact Dallas
Allen at 727-6234 or Ben Lorigo on 442-6433.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Natwar M. Gandhi:
Chief Financial Officer:
cc: Bert Molina, Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Budget and
Planning:
Michele Mackin, Assistant Director for Acquisition and Sourcing
Management:
Dr. Paul L. Vance, Superintendent, District of Columbia Public Schools:
Robert A. Morales, Chief Financial Officer, District of Columbia Public
Schools:
Dallas Allen, Director, Capital Improvements Program:
Peggy Cooper Cafritz, President, District of Columbia Board of
Education:
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure III: Comments from the Superintendent, District of Columbia
Public Schools:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this enclosure.
District Of Columbia Public Schools:
Office Of The Superintendent:
825 North Capitol Street, NE, 9th Floor:
Washington, DC 20002-1994:
(202) 442-5885 ” fax: (202) 442-5026:
July 9, 2002:
David E. Cooper, Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Thank you for the efforts of your office in reviewing our capital
modernization program and highlighting areas of concern and interest to
the General Accounting Office. We have worked closely with your staff
to provide all requested information and know how hard they have worked
on this important project. We have reviewed the document and appreciate
having this opportunity to respond.
While we are in agreement with some aspects of the report, we find that
some of the same mischaracterizations and errors made during the GAO's
April 2002 testimony to the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on
the District of Columbia persist in the current report. The report also
does not account fully for activities between April, when the hearing
occurred, and today. We outlined some of our concerns about the
original testimony in the attached memo to our Board of Education and
summarize these concerns below. [See comment 1]
The GAO is correct in pointing out that full funding for the
modernization of 143 school buildings has not been identified to date.
Full funding remains a significant challenge. However, the School
Board, the Mayor and the Council are committed to the modernization
program. Evidence of the city's commitment is found in the additional
$38 million in capital funding identified for school construction in FY
2003. These funds and those already committed to the initiative bring
the total capital budget for next year to a record $222 million, The
additional funding was identified not by taking on additional debt, but
rather by reallocating funds within the city's capital budget,
effectively making school modernization a higher priority for the city.
This reprioritization has not yet been applied to the out-years of the
plan, and sustained funding does remain a key concern of everyone
involved However, it is important to note that the city's capital
budget fully funds those school modernization projects now on the
drawing board. [See comment 2]
The GAO report is puzzling because it recommends actions that have
already been completed and ignores many potentially productive
solutions that remain open to DCPS and the city. Budgets and schedules
have already been revised for this year. Additional revisions will be
submitted for formal approval by the Board of Education for next year's
annual revision of the master plan. The gap between the FY 03 budget
request and the recommended funding level is already past history. The
June GAO report states: "Even with additional funding, however, the
school system still has $105 million less than it now estimates it will
need in fiscal year 2003 to carry out its planned modernization
program." This statement ignores the May 2002 Board of Education action
approving a revised capital budget at the $222 million level This Board-
approved revised spending plan keeps the modernization program on
schedule through FY 2003. [See comment 3]
The GAO persists in repeating the error that the District of Columbia's
FY 2002-2007 approved budget was developed to meet the needs of the
modernization program as defined by the 2001 Master Plan and that the
difference between the FY 2002-2007 CIP and the FY 2003-2008 request
was simply an issue of rising costs. This is not an accurate depiction.
The Master Plan is not a budget document. It only delineates
expenditures for the first 48 of a proposed 143 school projects. The
$848 million cost listed in the implementation section of the plan
properly excludes the 13 projects that were underway prior to master
plan approval. It also excludes the 82 sites to be modernized following
Tier 5 several years into the future. Again, the $848 million figure
was never intended as the total cost of the plan and there is even a
footnote to that effect (see page IV-13). Therefore, the comparison of
aggregate master plan costs and the more comprehensive DCPS capital
budget request is simply not valid. [See comments 4, 5 and 6]
The issue of funding for asbestos abatement is also oversimplified in
this document. The DCPS program undertakes asbestos management on
several fronts: "management in place" under AHERA requirements, small
abatement actions, and large capital abatement projects. Portions of
the $17 million aggregate figure budgeted in past years by DCPS for
abatement are now included within individual project costs, i.e.
projects that may have significant abatement costs associated with
them, but are not solely asbestos projects. The asbestos program is
managed in close cooperation with the District of Columbia Department
of Health and the US Environmental Protection Agency. We have ensured
that adequate resources are directed toward the asbestos program. [See
comment 7]
A substantial amount of abatement now occurs within the modernization
framework under specific project budgets rather than under the asbestos
management project heading. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers had previously identified a major abatement project to take
place at Lincoln Middle School this summer. Lincoln is slated to be
demolished and replaced with a new building to be opened in 2004. The
removal of all asbestos-containing materials will be accomplished under
the Lincoln modernization line item rather than under the asbestos
program budget. This method of addressing asbestos is less costly in
the long run and provides an asbestos-free environment in many cases.
Schools such as Cleveland, Noyes, McKinley, Patterson, Kelly Miller,
and Key were all scheduled for asbestos response actions and all were
abated under their respective modernization budgets. In addition,
Lincoln, Thomson, Randle Highlands, Barnard, Miner, and Bell Schools
will be abated in future phases starting this summer.
Regarding full funding of the Facilities Master Plan, DCPS and other
city agencies are working to develop alternative approaches to fully
funding the Facilities Master Plan. These alternatives include: [See
comment 8]
* DCPS receiving a greater share of the city's capital funding through
revised prioritization and additional prudent borrowing in future
years;
* Increased emphasis on frugality in project scope and design;
* Alternative financing mechanisms, including public-private
partnerships and other means of generating revenue;
* Partnerships with other agencies on capital projects to provide
efficiencies for the city and the school system;
* Continued use of grant funding where available; and;
* Identification of federal or other non-local revenue sources.
We believe that the District of Columbia, as a community, must
seriously consider the costs of rebuilding our schools. Like school
buildings in many cities, many of our facilities are old and in less
than ideal condition. These unacceptable learning conditions are
consistent with data reported by the GAO [Footnote 11], in 1996. In that
report, the GAO found that school systems with a high proportion of
minority students, students who qualify for free or reduced price
lunches, and students who attend schools in urban communities are much
more likely than students in the nation as a whole to attend school in
facilities with unsatisfactory environmental conditions. Our goal is to
provide our students with schools that are safe, sound and
educationally appropriate. It is not reasonable, at this early stage in
the modernization program, to return to the "band-aid" repairs of past
decades, especially when the need is recognized and support for
comprehensive improvements is extremely high. We believe that the
question of funding will best be answered through a public deliberation
process that is just beginning in earnest. Increased support from the
Mayor and Council for FY 2003 provides a period of opportunity to work
through these challenging issues to develop a sustainable financing
plan. [See comment 9]
I trust that this information clarifies issues raised in the GAO's
report. If you have any questions about these issues, please feel free
to contact Mr. Louis Erste, DCPS Chief Operating Officer, at 202/442-
5885.
Respectfully,
Signed by:
Paul L. Vance:
Superintendent:
Attachment:
cc: Louis Erste:
Attachment:
District Of Columbia Public Schools:
Office Of The Superintendent:
825 North Capitol Street, NE, 9th Floor:
Washington, D.C., 201102-1994:
(202) 442-5885 ” fax: (202) 442-5026:
Memorandum:
To: Peggy Cooper Cafritz, President of the Board:
Members of the Board of Education:
From: Paul L. Vance: [Signature included here]
Superintendent:
Date: April 25, 2002:
RE: Response to GAO Testimony on DCPS's Modernization Program:
The General Accounting Office (GAO) today delivered the attached
testimony on DCPS's Modernization Program before the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia. This memo describes several problems with the GAO
testimony.
Inadequate Funding for the Modernization Program:
The GAO testimony makes it appear that our capital budget for the
current six-year period adequately funded the Facilities Master Plan,
but that cost has gone up substantially thereby causing a gap in
funding. This is not an accurate depiction of the situation.
The capital budget we were granted by the City for implementing our
Facilities Master Plan is not adequate to fund the modernization
program. The GAO cites our FY 2002-2007 level of funding at $1.3
billion. This is incorrect. The FY 2002-2007 budget provides instead
$694,330,000 over six years of the plan, far short of the $12 billion
called for in the Facilities Master Plan to complete those six years of
school construction. [See comment 10]
This difference between the funding level required to stay on schedule
and the amount approved by the Mayor and Council will hit us hard in FY
2003 because so many of our major projects will start into
construction. This distinction is important because, as we have
testified before the Board of Education, the level of funding committed
to DCPS is not adequate for the modernization program to proceed at the
rate of ten schools per year. If Council approves for FY 2003 the lower
level of capital funding that was again recommended by the Mayor this
year, we would have to consider some combination of slowing down the
modernization program and working with the community to locate
additional funding sources (including federal funding) and devising
creative financing strategies. As discussed with the Board's Finance
and Facilities Committee, we have already been working on developing
alternative approaches to fully funding the Facilities Master Plan.
Facilities Master Plan cost estimates were only preliminary estimates
and are appropriately reviewed and revised during the normal budget
process as we implement each year of the Plan. The estimates were
derived from the experiences of surrounding jurisdictions, and are not
adequate to address the costs of construction in the District of
Columbia because of such factors such as historic preservation,
hazardous materials abatement, and small and complex urban sites. In
addition, we have increased slightly the square-footage per high school
student and are adding special education capacity to the schools being
built early in the program. We have therefore revised upward modestly
our estimate of school costs since the approval of the Facilities
Master Plan. These changes are clearly presented in the FY 2003-2008
Capital Budget approved by the Board of Education and submitted to the
Mayor last fall.
In addition, due to budget pressures on our operating budget and new
flexibility granted by the District CFO, we are now able to transfer
some costs previously covered in the operating budget onto the capital
budget, including furniture, fixtures and equipment for the new
buildings. This factor alone constitutes an 8% increase to each
school's cost. It is important to note that since our new team has come
on board, the construction costs of modernization are actually going
down on a square-foot basis because of increased oversight and
adherence to approved budgets.
Asbestos Funding Levels:
The GAO testimony is also misleading in its assertion that we budgeted
only $1 million per year for asbestos abatement in our FY 2002-2007
Capital Budget. The Board of Education, in the FY 2002 Revised Capital
Spending Plan, calls for the expenditure of $29 million on asbestos
abatement over the next six years. [See comment 11]
FY 2002 Revised Budget and FY 2003-2008 Request:
Approved by the Board of Education on November 30, 2001:
Fiscal year: 2002;
Capital: $8,500,000.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Capital: $8,500,000.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Capital: $4,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Capital: $3,500,000.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Capital: $2,500,000.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Capital: $1,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Capital: $1,000,000.
[End of table]
Additional capital funding for asbestos abatement occurs within
specific projects. For example, the abatement costs for modernization
projects are included within the modernization project budget.
Additional funding also comes from the operating budget. The asbestos
program is managed in close cooperation with the Department of Health
and the Environmental Protection Agency. We have ensured that adequate
resources are directed toward the asbestos program.
I trust that this information clarifies issues raised in the GAO's
testimony. If you have any questions about these issues, please feel
free to call Mr. Louis Elate at 202-442-5618.
PLV:Ije:
cc: Ms. Paula Perelman:
[End of attachment]
The following are GAO‘s comments on the school system‘s letter dated
July 9, 2002.
1. Even though the school system agreed with some aspects of the
report, it states that our report mischaracterizes the situation,
contains errors, and does not fully reflect recent activities. As
reflected in our specific comments, the school system‘s
characterizations of our report are not accurate.
2. Contrary to the school system‘s statement, we do not address full
funding for the entire program. Rather, we focused on a 6-year period
because the capital budget addresses that time frame.
3. The school system states that our recommendations have already been
completed. To support its position, the school system states that ’the
city‘s capital budget fully funds those school modernization projects
now on the drawing board.“ It also states that the revised capital
budget of $222 million ’keeps the modernization program on schedule
through fiscal year 2003.“ These statements are misleading. The program
was revised in fiscal year 2003-to reflect budget realities-by slipping
the scheduled completion dates of several schools and reducing the
component repair budget. These steps were needed because the fiscal
year 2003 budget fell $105 million short of the school system‘s revised
spending plan estimate, as stated on page 2 of our report.
Although the school system states that the recommendations have already
been completed, it contradicts itself by stating that ’reprioritization
has not yet been applied to the out-years of the plan, and sustained
funding does remain a key concern of everyone involved.“ We agree and
remain concerned that the school system has not taken steps to revise
the modernization program to reflect cost, schedule, and budget
realities over the life of the program. We are particularly concerned
that the school system faces a significant shortfall of about $600
million for the school modernization program covering the period from
fiscal year 2004 to 2007.
4. The school system states ’GAO persists in repeating the error“ that
the master plan is a budget document. We agree with the
Superintendent‘s statement that the facility master plan is not a
budget document, and we do not state that it is a budget document.
However, there is a wealth of evidence showing that the master plan
does, in fact, form the basis for the school system‘s capital budgets.
For example, in the November 2001 revised plan, the school system
states that the Board of Education adopted a facility master plan that
proposes the modernization of ’nearly every District school during the
next ten years.“ Further, the revised plan notes that the capital
budget is the implementation tool for the facility master
plan”identifying the funding requirements, clarifying the scope and
schedules, and reaffirming the goals of the program.
5. The school system mistakenly suggests that we evaluated the $848
million cost of the schools indicated in the facility master plan. It
is a coincidence that the $848 million noted in the facility master
plan happens to equal the $848 million shortfall we found when
comparing the original budget approved June 2001 to the school system‘s
November 2001 revised plan.
6. This assertion is incorrect. We did not compare the aggregate master
plan costs with the school system‘s capital budget. Rather, we focused
our analysis on a 6-year period, as clearly discussed on pages 2 and 4
of this report and in our April 25, 2002, testimony.
7. The school system says that it has ’ensured that adequate resources
are directed to the asbestos program.“ While it may be true that
’portions“ of the $17 million budgeted in past years for asbestos are
now included in individual project costs, there is still a need to fund
other asbestos requirements, and the school system‘s budget request is
clearly not doing this after fiscal year 2003. No funding is budgeted
for asbestos for fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
8. The school system states that it is working to develop alternative
approaches to fully fund the master facility plan. We revised our
report to reflect this point.
9. The school system states that ’it is not reasonable, at this early
stage in the modernization program, to return to the …band aid‘ repairs
of past decades.“ We agree, and in fact our recommendation is intended
to move the school system toward a balanced program that funds
modernization projects and component repairs. However, the school
system has focused on funding the modernization program at the expense
of the component repair program. The budget for component repairs was
reduced from $70.7 million to $37.7 million for fiscal year 2003 and
was zeroed out for fiscal year 2004 and beyond.
10. The school system erroneously links our $1.3 billion figure to the
fiscal year 2002 through 2007 funding level. Our testimony states that,
based on the facility master plan, a $1.3 billion capital budget to
modernize the public schools was approved in June 2001. This figure
includes $378 million that was budgeted and expended through fiscal
year 2001, as well as $868 million budgeted over the 6-year period
covering fiscal years 2002 to 2007. In addition, we included federal
funds amounting to $55 million that had also been spent on the
modernization program.
The school system states that the fiscal year 2002-2007 budget provides
$694,330,000 over six years of the plan. This is incorrect. It is the
fiscal year 2003-2008 capital budget, prepared in March 2002, that
provides for this amount of funding.
11. See comment 7.
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements:
GAO Contact:
Michele Mackin, 202-512-4309:
Acknowledgements:
In addition to the individual named above, Charles D. Groves, John D.
Heere, Gary L. Middleton, William Petrick, Jr., and Russell R. Reiter
made key contributions to this report.
[End of enclosure]
Footnotes:
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia: D.C. Public
Schools‘ Modernization Program Faces Major Challenges, GAO-02-628T
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2002). See enclosure I.
[2] The facility master plan, approved by the D.C. Board of Education,
outlines an approach to modernize the schools during a 10- to 15-year
period.
[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia: D.C. Public
Schools Inappropriately Used Gas Utility Contract for Renovations, GAO-
01-963 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2001) and U.S. General Accounting
Office, GSA‘s Guidance and Oversight Concerning Areawide Utility
Contracts, GAO-02-56R (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2001).
[4] Oyster elementary school, funded through a public-private
partnership, opened in September 2001.
[5] Feasibility studies are used to develop the initial design of a
school, based on the educational specifications. These studies involve
extensive input from the community.
[6] According to Corps officials, temporary heating systems were
available in the schools in October 2001 for 7 of the projects. Three
of the projects were substantially completed in October 2001, but
additional time was needed to finish remaining work.
[7] An additional three projects did not have scheduled completion
dates due to an administrative error, so we could not assess timeliness
of these projects. The basis for our analysis was the Corps‘ fiscal
year 2001 project list, dated February 2001, and subsequent updates.
[8] Estimates were made using a 95-percent confidence level. We
considered evidence of inspection to be the Washington Gas inspector‘s
initials or signature on subcontractor invoices or proposals.
[9] When it was discovered that many of these incidents occurred during
boiler replacement projects, the District of Columbia Department of
Health temporarily shut down 17 boiler replacement projects throughout
the school system.
[10] One enforcement action taken by the Department was to suspend a
contractor‘s license for 30 days.
[11] School Facilities: America's Schools report Differing Conditions,
General Accounting Office, GAO/HEHS-96-103 (Washington, D.C.: June
1996).
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full-text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov]:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
