Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architect: detailed engineering drove $13.2M increase in new middle school estimate; district weighing alternates
Summary
Perkins Eastman reported a $13.2 million swing between spring and fall estimates after engineers provided detailed quantities, with structural, exterior enclosure and roofing accounting for large increases; the district is considering alternates (net-zero systems, athletic fields, generator, theater equipment) totaling about $10 million to meet RIDE budget targets.
Mark McCarthy of Perkins Eastman told the North Kingstown School Committee on March 31 that the district’s new middle school cost estimate rose substantially after the project moved from conceptual estimates (May 2025) to detailed engineering (September 2025).
McCarthy said the shift from historical, high-level estimating to engineer-quantified quantities drove most of the difference: structural elements rose by roughly $4 million, the exterior enclosure (including insulation, glazing and related enclosure work) rose about $4.9 million, and the roof increased about $1.8 million. Taken together these hard-cost increases were about $10.9 million; applying lower contingency as drawings improved and adding soft costs produced an approximately $13.2 million increase overall.
Why it matters: The district must submit a budget package to the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) that aligns with its allowable budget. McCarthy explained that because hard costs rose, soft costs (fees, permits and escalation) grew as percentages of the higher hard cost. To keep the submission on budget the project team identified alternates — features that could be removed or phased — that together total about $10 million, including adjustments to net-zero systems, athletic field work, generator and theater equipment and other items.
Committee reaction and next steps: Committee members expressed surprise at the scale of the swing and asked whether subcontractor responses or estimator methodology explained the increase. Perkins Eastman and the district said different cost estimators were used and that engineers provided more precise quantities in the fall. The district also reported having a construction management firm corroborate the revised costs. The committee asked staff to further analyze why May’s estimate had been lower and to bring additional corroborating information back to the committee; alternates remain under consideration as part of the RIDE submission process.
Context: McCarthy emphasized that the building’s scope did not materially change between iterations; rather, more detailed drawings and engineering quantities replaced high-level historical assumptions. The committee discussed next steps for alternates, budgeting and potential impacts on school programming and athletics if items (fields, net-zero features) were deferred.
