Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Easton Area SD design team narrows value‑engineering choices; board weighs warranty, windows, finishes and emergency power
Loading...
Summary
At a V E session the district team reviewed 26 top items: a blanket two‑year warranty alternate (~$1.15M), operable windows ($330K), finish choices (terrazzo vs quartz/VCT), HVAC screening, lighting options, and emergency power coverage; many items were held for design development or set as bid alternates.
Design and estimating consultants walked the Easton Area School District ad hoc committee through a prioritized value‑engineering (V E) review of roughly 26 "rank‑2" items on the schematic design. The V E presentation explained those items could be (a) included in the design, (b) excluded, (c) offered as bid alternates or (d) held for design development.
One of the largest single alternates presented was a blanket two‑year warranty for many scopes, which the team estimated would add about $1,150,000 to the contract. The design lead and board members recommended targeting high‑use items (door hardware, major HVAC components, certain lighting) and packaging the extra warranty as bid alternates so the board can choose at bid day.
Windows and safety: the committee debated operable classroom windows. Consultants estimated a full‑building operable‑window option at roughly $330,000; members raised HVAC balancing, security and emergency egress concerns and asked the design team to study a narrower option (first‑floor exit windows or keyed operable windows) in design development.
Finishes and durability: the group discussed corridor and classroom flooring choices (terrazzo, quartz tile, VCT), terrazzo stair treads and risers versus painted risers (an add of about $111,000), and polished concrete versus VCT in classrooms. Several members favored preserving terrazzo in main circulation and high‑traffic areas for longevity while reserving other finishes as alternates.
Systems and safety: mechanical choices (air‑cooled vs water‑cooled chillers, hybrid systems) were held for energy modeling and vendor pricing; the team recommended running an efficiency report during design development. Rooftop HVAC screening was suggested as an add‑alternate (rough savings estimate for deleting screens was ~$640,000) but presenters warned that township land‑development approvals often require certain aesthetics, so screening should be treated carefully. The committee supported adding emergency lighting and prioritizing emergency power to large gathering spaces (gym, auditorium, nurse's office) but noted generator sizing and fuel‑type tradeoffs will affect final costs.
Technology and operations: the committee discussed reducing classroom wall data jacks by relying on wireless access points as a potential ~$210,000 saving, but IT staff and maintenance cautioned against skimping on classroom network infrastructure; a mockup classroom and closer design review were recommended before reducing jacks.
Outcome and next steps: the consultants said accepted rank‑2 V E items totaled roughly $296,000 in savings so far, with several items held for additional study and others marked as alternates. A final V E report and spreadsheet with detailed cost backup will be distributed in approximately a month; PlanCon A/B is slated for board action Sept. 30. No formal votes were recorded during the meeting.
