A legislative review of the Division of Facilities Construction and Management (DFCM) presented to the Transportation and Infrastructure Interim Committee on Oct. 14 concluded state buildings are far more expensive to build now than a decade ago and recommended changes to how projects are scoped, priced and procured.

Marvin Dodge, executive director of the Department of Government Operations, told the committee: "The price has dramatically increased," and showed a chart that, he said, reflects a roughly 236% escalation on certain DFCM project cost estimates over 10 years.

Why it matters: committee members and DFCM leaders said the state routinely relies on feasibility studies that provide high‑level, rough order‑of‑magnitude prices. Those figures often travel with a project through the executive and legislative budget process and can lead to surprise cost increases later. The committee was shown how feasibility studies frequently include extensive wish‑lists from agencies and campus stakeholders, leaving legislators without clear detail about what is core to a building’s program and what is an optional upgrade or "betterment."

DFCM's recommendations and findings: presenters described several recurring issues and proposed fixes. Key items presented by Dodge and Andy Martin, division director at DFCM, included:

- Feasibility studies often lack granular, component‑level costs and are sometimes used in lieu of more comprehensive program studies. DFCM recommended funding and using deeper program studies before budgeting major capital projects. "The best way that we can provide an accurate number for you is through a program study," Dodge said.

- Create a DFCM process to separate core building requirements from discretionary "betterments." Martin and Dodge said the division plans to adopt a model similar to UDOT's betterment policy — where a standard element is paid for from the state budget and any higher‑end upgrade is billed separately to the requesting entity.

- Increase in‑house technical review capacity. Committee members and DFCM staff said the division has insufficient internal architectural capacity to challenge outside designers early in the feasibility phase. Andy Martin confirmed the division currently has "1" architect on staff who is acting as a project manager; presenters argued more internal expertise is needed to shape scope and defend proper priorities.

- Prototype designs and standardized components. DFCM recommended pursuing prototype or repeatable building designs where appropriate (for example, selected technical buildings and certain liquor stores), and standardizing floor heights, mechanical systems and envelopes to reduce unique design costs.

- Procurement and bidding practices. DFCM recommended reviewing the use of segmented bid packages, bonding requirements that may exclude midsized contractors, and value‑based selection criteria to broaden competition and reduce price escalation tied to multiple re‑bids.

- Data and fund management improvements. The division has proposed a centralized data warehouse and more detailed coding tied to appropriations so every dollar spent on a building can be tracked and compared across projects.

Discussion and questions: committee members probed when DFCM's cost increases are Utah‑specific versus national. Dodge said some escalation is national (supply chain, labor shortages following the pandemic) but Utah faces additional upward pressure because of high local construction demand, major projects such as the airport expansion and a large semiconductor plant, and strong home‑building activity that draw construction labor away from public projects.

Several legislators highlighted examples where design choices appeared unnecessary for the program (for instance, refrigerated air in an automotive shop) and welcomed the betterment approach as a way to preserve discretionary features only where justified and funded.

What the committee asked for next: presenters and staff said they will return with (1) more detailed analytics that compare DFCM projects to comparable commercial projects on an apples‑to‑apples basis; (2) proposed updates to DFCM design standards and prototype plans; and (3) a proposed approach to expand in‑house programming and to fund program studies prior to large appropriations.

Ending: presenters urged legislators to consider earlier prioritization and longer lead‑times for capital projects so projects can be bid once and lock costs, instead of in multiple escalating bid packages. Dodge said program studies and earlier prioritization could save both time and money and make public project spending more predictable.