Just one year after Wellesley College trustees approved a long-term campus renewal plan, the college had three projects in construction and six in design. In all, some $137 million worth of work, roughly 25 percent of the total plan, is currently underway, thanks to Wellesley’s bold approach: At once sweeping and granular, the process departed from traditional master planning by employing multiple architecture firms and incorporating up front many activities typically not seen months or even years into the design workstream.
Beyond the accelerated timeframe, the exhaustive exercise is remarkable for the large number of entities involved and the high level of stakeholder participation. The esteemed suburban Boston women’s college hired five different architecture firms, each an expert in a specific programmatic discipline, to act as the space planner for a distinct program initiative. A sixth architect consolidated their reports and developed the campus renewal program. Detailed cost estimates for the initiatives were calculated by two independent firms, one of which then conducted comprehensive macro- and micro-economic analyses of potential cost escalations.
Throughout the process, a layered organizational structure accommodated Wellesley stakeholder engagement. A steering committee, co-chaired by the vice president of finance and the provost and comprised of key college leaders, assigned working groups of faculty, staff, and students to collaborate with the five core architecture firms.
The all-encompassing approach was fueled by a sense of urgency to address an extensive deferred maintenance backlog/modernization need during a period of rapidly escalating construction costs.
“We needed to move forward quickly,” says Jon Alvarez, Wellesley’s director of design and construction. “Having five architects working in parallel gave us the capacity to work on all five projects simultaneously instead of stretching out the planning over several years.”
Wellesley’s consensus-driven environment also played a major role in shaping the renewal plan strategy. The college’s vast needs touched 1.5 million sf of its total 2.5 million-sf portfolio. A mechanism to channel input from the multiplicity of affected user groups was essential.
“Very few places run as much by consensus as does Wellesley,” continues Alvarez. “We needed to reach as many constituents as possible. The working group structure gave us the ability to achieve adequate saturation across the campus.”
Organization
The programming initiatives focused on five campus areas, each of which was addressed by an architecture firm known for planning excellence in that arena:
- The residential student experience (Newman Architects, New Haven, Conn.)
- Arts and media (GUND Partnership, Cambridge, Mass.)
- Humanities (Kliment Halsband Architects, New York)
- Science and the environment (Ellenzweig, Cambridge)
- Wellness and sport (Cannon Architects, Boston)
The sixth planner was VSBA, the successor firm to Venturi Scott Brown, of Philadelphia. The independent estimators were Turner Construction, Boston, and Vermeulens, Boston, which also performed the macro-economic analysis.
On the Wellesley side, the working groups consisted of 10 to 15 representatives from each distinct program initiative, with smaller sub-groups dedicated to individual initiatives within the core part. For example, residential life committee members included the dean of students, the director of residential life, the director of housing, and other interested faculty and student stakeholders. Each working group also had trustee representation to provide information to the board on the far-reaching initiative. One of this committee’s sub-groups studied the dining aspect of the residential program, while another addressed the issue of swing space when affected buildings would be taken offline.
Under the direction of project managers from the college’s Facilities Management and Planning Capital Program Management office (now called the Office of Design and Construction), the five groups met independently of one another to produce very detailed program reports and conceptual pricing packages for multiple options. The reports extended to thousands of pages, encompassing meeting minutes, presentations, executive summaries, estimates, and appendices. This documentation served as invaluable source material to support decision-making in the design stage.
“This output was very helpful when we later hired the architect to execute the project,” says Alvarez. “So many questions would arise, for instance, about why there were no provisions for air-conditioning in a dining hall. It was easy to dive into the in-depth background information to find the workshop when that decision was made and the reasoning behind it.”
The sixth architect, known as the consolidated program planner, worked with the steering committee to prioritize, set goals and objectives, and identify which projects would ultimately be realized as part of the overall program.
Traditional and Wellesley Approach Compared
Comparing the steps of traditional master plan preparation to Wellesley’s renewal plan, James Vermeulen, co-CEO of Vermeulens, the cost consultant, points out several distinctions that confirm just how far the college’s initiative exceeded the conventional scope.
- A master plan shows building siting and campus linkages, while the renewal plan went farther to include detailed programming with user groups.
- The master plan might include site mapping, while the renewal plan generated detailed narratives, floor plans, and elevations.
- The traditional path calls for one estimator to produce a cost per sf for the building type; Wellesley hired two independent estimators.
- A traditional plan has no parallel estimating process, while the renewal plan produced detailed estimates in parallel with multiple options.
- A master plan relies on project cost multipliers, while the renewal plan resulted in detailed line item project costs.
- In the traditional method, long-term escalation is projected using construction trend lines. Wellesley based its escalation calculations on the Boston market and the experience of the local construction manager, general contractor, and the college itself.
Reconciliation
A key step in the process was reconciliation, a meticulous exercise in which the costs calculated by Turner Construction and Vermeulens were scrupulously compared to make sure their scope aligned.
Initially, most estimates came in within a range that reassured Wellesley that both consultants were “seeing the same thing,” according to Alvarez. Estimators and planners spent days in reconciliation sessions, reviewing every line item to tease out the discrepancies. The scrutiny drilled down into details like the grade of windows, the need for operating vents, or the choice of a custom color.
Costs were further refined by local market updates from Turner Construction, which pointed out, for example, that a shortage of masons was driving up labor prices.
“We wouldn’t always come to the same number, but the difference of just a couple percentage points was adequate,” says Alvarez.
Three Plan Options
When the renewal planning effort launched, the working groups received a stringent directive: Wellesley’s 2.5 million sf of built space was more than sufficient for its enrollment of 2,300 women; don’t plan new construction. Nevertheless, the groups had a hard time abandoning their highest aspirations, so the steering committee imposed a mandate to prepare a zero-growth option, along with “wish-list” versions.
The farthest-reaching plan presented for trustee approval estimated overall program costs at $1.4 billion in 2012 dollars. The zero-growth option was pegged at $900 million. Both far exceeded Wellesley capacity. Working with Vermeulens and Turner, the college put together a funding model based on the most conservative scenarios.
“We factored in a high cost of money, low ability to fundraise, minimal opportunity to cut operating costs, very low ROI, very high escalation—all the conditions that could create the perfect storm of adverse economic headwinds,” says Vermeulen.
“That led us to believe we could afford $365 million for first phase, the base plan,” adds Alvarez. “Beyond that, if the headwinds did not materialize, the next tier expanded to $450 million. The comprehensive model reached $550 million.”
The Field House and Other Lessons
One of the first projects out of the implementation gate presented the opportunity for an important lesson on scope creep.
After reviewing the master plan study work—a very detailed set of assumptions, narratives, and floor plans—the Wellesley trustees approved a $7.7 million expenditure for the field house. However, by the time it reached the end of schematic design, the price tag surged by $3 million.
Vemeulen discovered that the new design team and its user group had departed significantly from the original plan, adding improvements ranging from a new fitness mezzanine complete with air conditioning to a track with a long-jump pit.
The need for the additions was justified, and thanks to a contingency fund the expanded project was able to proceed, but the planning team knew the process was not repeatable.
“We had to find a way of reigning in scope creep, some kind of early warning system,” says Alvarez.
Remedies included three measures: start each new project with a review of the campus renewal plan, update the cost model with all assumptions clearly stated, and update the cost model monthly to track ongoing design and minimize value engineering.
In addition, a campus facility planning committee, comprised of key college leaders, was established to provide oversight of the campus renewal program, including future change-of-scope issues. This committee created a place to discuss proposed changes and determine whether they should be pursued and, if so, how to pay for them.
“This is not the role of the project manager,” notes Alvarez. “We needed a multi-constituent panel to uphold the original standards and make those decisions.”
Alvarez also stresses the importance of cultivating realistic expectations about plan results among all user groups. In the first phase of the plan, only eight of the 24 projects Wellesley envisioned were slated to move forward.
“Don’t lose sight of the fact that only a subset of all the building renovations studied will be implemented,” he cautions.
Successful Escalation Hedge
While engaging five different space planners and project managers to prepare the renewal plan was a large expense, Alvarez notes that it was both necessary and economically justified.
“We needed this structure in order to understand what programs Wellesley really wanted,” he explains.
Because their output was so detailed, with definitive programs, solid budgets, and multiple options, the college was able to develop an aggressive implementation timeline.
“The escalation numbers allowed us to educate the trustees, making them aware that construction costs don’t follow the CPI,” he continues. “When they saw the magnitude of the impact on projects 10 years out, they became much more aggressive to get things rolling right away.
“We moved right on the heels of board approval in April 2013 to immediately start soliciting architects. Facing a rapidly escalating construction market, I can easily say we minimized risk and recouped fees,” concludes Alvarez.
By Nicole Zaro Stahl
This report is based on a presentation Alvarez and Vermeulen made at Tradeline’s 2014 Conference on Strategic Facilities Planning and Management.
