District of Columbia Public Schools: Availability of Funds and the Cost
of FY 1997 Roof Projects (Letter Report, 03/09/98, GAO/AIMD-98-82).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the District of
Columbia Public Schools' (DCPS) efforts to repair school roofs during
the summer of 1997, focusing on the conflicting information on the
availability of funds to pay for the roof work and the cost, including
cost per square foot, of the work completed in fiscal year (FY) 1997.

GAO noted that: (1) sufficient funding was available to begin roof work
when schools were closed for the summer June 20, 1997; (2) the
District's records show that the Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority had about $18 million available in March 1997 for
DCPS-managed roof work, with the available amount increasing to about
$38 million by June 1997; (3) a series of events preceeding the efforts
to repair D.C. school roofs contributed to the delayed start; (4)
although it was decided that DCPS would manage the majority of this
work, DCPS was not prepared to start immediately because it had not
completed sufficient planning, such as determining the scope of work on
individual projects which would be the basis for seeking bids for that
work; (5) a contributing factor to this delay was the almost complete
turnover in technical capital project staff during the school year; (6)
these problems were compounded by difficulties in securing bids,
resulting in DCPS-managed work not starting until the third week of
July; (7) DCPS stated that at the time the long-range plan was submitted
in February 1997, it had expected to complete roof work by the end of
October 1997 but accelerated it in response to a court order that roof
work would not be done while classes were in session; (8) consequently,
the work was accomplished under a highly compressed schedule; (9) GAO's
review showed that DCPS spent about $37 million for roof replacement or
repair in FY 1997; (10) this included a extensive amount of work not
only on the roofs, but also on adjacent upper portions of the buildings
to achieve structurally sound, watertight facilities; (11) as a result,
the costs were higher than what would have been incurred for roofing
work only; (12) considering all of these costs, the average cost per
square foot of roof surface replaced or repaired was about $20, with
DCPS-managed contracts somewhat higher than those managed by the General
Services Administration; (13) insufficient data exist to ascertain with
any certainty the added cost associated with the degree of deferred
maintenance encountered in this extensive project; (14) years of neglect
and inadequate repair and maintenance practices all served to increase
costs over what could be expected in well-managed, adequately financed
entities; (15) DCPS plans for FY 1998 show additional roof work at 40
more schools at an approximate cost of $35 million; and (16) in
addition, DCPS proposed Capital Improvement Program Plan for fiscal
years 1999-2004 indicates that an additional $63 million is anticipated
for roof replacement or repairs during this period.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  AIMD-98-82
     TITLE:  District of Columbia Public Schools: Availability of Funds 
             and the Cost of FY 1997 Roof Projects
      DATE:  03/09/98
   SUBJECT:  Public schools
             Educational facilities
             Repair costs
             Facility repairs
             Facility maintenance
             Future budget projections
             Building codes
             Funds management
             Construction contracts
IDENTIFIER:  District of Columbia
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, U.S.  Senate

March 1998

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS - AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS
AND THE COST OF FY 1997 ROOF
PROJECTS

GAO/AIMD-98-82

District of Columbia Public Schools

(916240)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CEO - Chief Executive Officer
  COO - Chief Operating Officer
  DCPS - District of Columbia Public Schools
  DMJM - Daniel, Mann, Johnson, and Mendenhall
  GSA - General Services Administration
  IFBC - Invitation for Bid and Contract
  NTP - Notice to Proceed
  RFQ - Request for Qualifications

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-278471

March 9, 1998

The Honorable Sam Brownback
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of
 Government Management, Restructuring
 and the District of Columbia
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

In a September 30, 1997, letter, you requested that we review the
District of Columbia Public Schools' (DCPS) efforts to repair\1
school roofs during the summer of 1997.  You indicated that your
Subcommittee had received widely varying information on the cost of
the roof repair work ranging from $11 to $19 per square foot, and
that there were divergent views on when funds were available to do
that work, ranging from as early as April 1997 to July 1997. 
Consistent with your request, we focused on the conflicting
information presented to the Subcommittee on the availability of
funds to pay for the roof work and the cost, including the cost per
square foot, of the work completed in fiscal year 1997.  This report
also provides information on DCPS' plans for roof work during fiscal
year 1998 and beyond. 

This report contains technical terms concerning roofing structures
and repairs, which are defined in the glossary at the end of this
report.  In addition, key events and related dates pertaining to the
fiscal year 1997 roof repairs are in appendix I. 


--------------------
\1 As discussed in this report, roof work was done at 61 schools
during fiscal year 1997. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The District of Columbia Public Schools' draft Long-Range Facilities
Master Plan, dated July 17, 1997, states that the majority of
District public schools were built over 50 years ago, generally have
not been well maintained, and consequently, substantial deferred
maintenance exists.  In addition, concerns about safety and problems
with leaky school roofs have been widely reported.  We have
documented the less-than-adequate condition of the District's public
schools in several reports.\2 In 1992, Parents United for the
District of Columbia, an education advocacy group, filed a lawsuit in
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia naming several city
officials and alleging their failure\3 to perform their duties with
respect to the D.C.  public schools, including but not limited to,
their duties related to hundreds of fire code violations in aging
D.C.  school buildings.\4

In an effort to respond to these concerns, the Congress included
legislative provisions on this matter in recently enacted
legislation:  Secs.  2550-2552 of the District of Columbia School
Reform Act of 1995,\5 called for the Administrator of the General
Services Administration (GSA) to provide technical assistance to the
District public schools in the area of facilities management and for
the Mayor and the District of Columbia Council, in consultation with
the Administrator of GSA, the Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority (Authority), the Board of Education, and the
Superintendent of Schools, to design and implement a comprehensive
long-term program for the repair, improvement, maintenance, and
management of District public school facilities and to designate or
establish an agency within the District of Columbia government to
administer the program.  The plan also was required to include
short-term and long-term funding sources. 

Section 603(e)(2)(A) of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1997,\6 authorized the Authority to establish an account to receive
the proceeds from privatization of certain government entities to
carry out the District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (which
provides for the repairs and improvement of District schools) and to
finance public elementary and secondary school facility construction
and repair within the District of Columbia.  Section 5201 of the
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997\7 authorized the
Authority to contract with private entities to carry out a program of
school facility repair of District public schools, in consultation
with GSA. 

On November 15, 1996, the Authority restructured DCPS, installing a
nine-member Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees and a
Chief Executive Officer (CEO), both as Agents of the Authority.  The
Authority also delegated its authorities to oversee all facilities
and property to the new Board of Trustees.  The Authority removed the
then Superintendent of Schools and gave the CEO responsibility for
all the authorities, powers, functions, exemptions, and immunities of
the former Superintendent.  The CEO established an office of Chief
Operating Officer (COO)/Director of Facilities and hired a COO in
January 1997 to manage and implement the school facilities
improvement program.\8

To assist in this effort, GSA updated a study,\9 by developing a
comprehensive facilities revitalization plan, Determination and
Prioritization of the District of Columbia Public Schools
Projects,\10 which was delivered to DCPS on February 18, 1997.  The
plan described problems such as leaky roofs, inoperable boilers,
numerous fire code violations, and the absence of a long-range
facilities master plan and estimated the cost of upgrading the school
infrastructure to be $2 billion.  The February 1997 plan and the
underlying work were the basis for the long-range facilities master
plan.  To develop the long-range facilities master plan, a task force
was formed including representatives from DCPS, the Office of the
Mayor, and the 21st Century School Fund.\11 A February 28, 1997,
draft report of the long-range plan was submitted to the D.C. 
Council in February, and was resubmitted with changes in April, and
again in July.  The Council did not vote on the plan,\12 and DCPS
submitted it to the Congress to meet the congressionally mandated
submission date of April 25, 1997.  The draft long-range facilities
master plan considered roof replacement to be the number one
priority. 

GSA contracted for and managed roof work at 10 schools--initially 7
schools at the Authority's request.  In June 1997, DCPS requested
GSA's assistance, and GSA managed work on an additional three
schools.  DCPS oversaw work on another 51 schools for which roof work
was completed in fiscal year 1997. 


--------------------
\2 School Facilities:  Condition of America's Schools
(GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb.1, 1995); School Facilities:  America's Schools
Report Differing Conditions (GAO/HEHS-96-103, June 14, 1996); School
Facilities:  Profiles of School Condition by State (GAO/HEHS-96-148,
June 24, 1996); and District of Columbia Draft Emergency Supplemental
Funding Request for District of Columbia Public Schools
(GAO/HEHS-97-116R, May 5, 1997). 

\3 This includes allegations that the Fire Department failed to
inspect schools regularly and that the Mayor and Council failed to
adequately fund the DCPS capital budget to eliminate fire code
violations. 

\4 On November 3, 1997, a settlement was reached between Parents
United and the Mayor.  Pursuant to the agreement, within 5 years,
DCPS will perform work, at an estimated cost of $487 million, to
complete the "stabilization" and "functionality" repairs required by
the draft DCPS Long-Range Facilities Master Plan. 

\5 As enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
Appropriations Act of 1996, Public Law No.  104-134, sec.  101(b),
Title II, 110 Stat.  1321-141 through 1321-143 (April 26, 1996). 
D.C.  Code Ann.   31-2853-50 through 31-2853-52 (1997 Supp.). 

\6 As enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997,
Public Law No.  104-208, Division A, Title I, sec.  101(e), 110 Stat. 
3009-233, 3009-293. 

\7 Public Law No.  104-208, 110 Stat.  3009-501 (September 30, 1996),
D.C.  Code Ann.   31-2851 note (1997 Supp.). 

\8 The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit recently ruled that the Authority's creation of, and
delegation of certain powers to, the Board of Trustees were ultra
vires (beyond the powers of the Authority).  Shook v.  District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority, No.  97-7087 1998 WL 1796, at 10 (Jan.  6, 1998). 

\9 This study (3DI-AEPA Facilities Assessment Study) was performed
from 1991 to 1992 by 3DI-AEPA Architects and Engineers. 

\10 GSA issued a task order on a previously competitively bid
contract with the architectural and engineering firm of Daniel, Mann,
Johnson, and Mendenhall (DMJM) to assist in the development of the
comprehensive facilities revitalization plan. 

\11 The 2lst Century School Fund is a nonprofit organization, which
focuses on the modernization of public school facilities. 

\12 In a statement on January 23, 1998, the Chief Operating Officer
of DCPS stated that the Council did not act to either approve or
reject the plan.  According to a Council official, the plan did not
adequately address the prioritization of the capital program,
including roof repairs. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Sufficient funding was available to begin roof work when schools were
closed for the summer on June 20, 1997.  The District's records show
that the Authority had about $18 million available in March 1997 for
DCPS-managed roof work, with the available amount increasing to about
$38 million by June 1997. 

A series of events preceeding the efforts to repair D.C.  school
roofs contributed to the delayed start.  Although it was decided that
DCPS would manage the majority of this work, DCPS was not prepared to
start immediately because it had not completed sufficient planning,
such as determining the scope of work on individual projects which
would be the basis for seeking bids for that work.  A contributing
factor to this delay was the almost complete turnover in technical
capital project staff during the school year.  These problems were
compounded by difficulties in securing bids, resulting in
DCPS-managed work not starting until the third week of July.  DCPS
told us that at the time the long-range plan was submitted in
February 1997, it had expected to complete roof work by the end of
October 1997 but accelerated it in response to a court order that
roof work not be done while classes were in session.  Consequently,
the work was accomplished under a highly compressed schedule. 

Our review showed that DCPS spent about $37 million for roof
replacement/repair in fiscal year 1997.  As discussed in this report,
this included an extensive amount of work not only on the roofs, but
also on the adjacent upper portions of the buildings to achieve
structurally sound, watertight facilities.  As a result, the costs
were higher than what would have been incurred for roofing work only. 
Considering all of these costs, the average cost per square foot of
roof surface replaced or repaired was about $20, with DCPS-managed
contracts somewhat higher than those managed by GSA.  Some factors
that contributed to the cost difference between GSA- and DCPS-managed
work include: 

  -- GSA was able to issue task orders against its existing
     architectural and engineering, and construction contracts, and
     did not have to seek bids when the market was saturated with
     roof work,

  -- GSA-managed projects were done over longer time frames, calling
     for less overtime work, and

  -- GSA managed only flat roof work, not higher cost multiple roof
     areas and materials. 

Insufficient data exist to ascertain with any certainty the added
cost associated with the degree of deferred maintenance encountered
in this extensive project.  Years of neglect and inadequate repair
and maintenance practices all served to increase costs over what
could be expected in well-managed, adequately financed entities. 
Further, material suppliers would not provide or honor extended
warranties unless prescribed roof-related and other preventive
maintenance was completed concurrently with the roofing repairs or
replacement.  GSA, DCPS, and the architectural and engineering firm
overseeing the work all agreed that this combination of factors
precluded a more economical solution to the school roofing project in
fiscal year 1997. 

DCPS plans for fiscal year 1998 show additional roof work at 40 more
schools at an approximate cost of $35 million.  In addition, DCPS
proposed Capital Improvement Program Plan for Fiscal Years
1999-2004\13 indicates that an additional $63 million is anticipated
for roof replacement/repairs during this period. 


--------------------
\13 This plan has not yet been approved by the Congress. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Our objectives were to determine (1) when funds were made available
to pay for roof repairs, (2) the cost of the roof repairs, including
the cost per square foot, and (3) whether there are additional roofs
to be repaired in fiscal year 1998 and beyond. 

To determine when the capital funds were available to pay for roof
repairs, we reviewed documents provided by the U.S.  Department of
Education, Authority, District CFO's office, and DCPS CFO.  In
addition, we reviewed funding request modification documents prepared
by DCPS and approved by the District's Office of Budget and Planning,
monthly reports produced by the District's Financial Management
System, and other financial documents provided by DCPS. 

To determine the cost of the roof repairs, we obtained and reviewed
information from the contract files at DCPS for fiscal year 1997
projects, which included information on each school, such as the
dollar amount and other terms of each contract, types of roofing
material used, size of the area replaced/repaired, modifications
(change orders), daily inspection sheets, invoices submitted for
payment and actual amounts paid to contractors. 

In addition, we compared design and construction cost estimates
prepared by a DCPS engineering consultant and GSA to the contract
amount and change orders for the schools' roofs replaced/repaired. 
We held discussions with DCPS officials to obtain reasons for any
significant variances from the cost estimates. 

We also interviewed District Government officials, including
officials from the Authority, the Chief Financial Officer for the
District, the Deputy Chief Financial Officer for the District's
Office of Budget and Planning, the Chief Operating Officer of DCPS
and his Capital Project Division staff, the Chief Financial Officer
of DCPS, and District Council officials.  In addition, we interviewed
officials from the General Services Administration, the U.S. 
Department of Education, a DCPS consultant,\14 Parents United, and
the 21st Century School Fund to obtain additional information to
satisfy our objectives. 

To determine whether additional roofs required repairs, we reviewed
DCPS' fiscal year 1997 Capital Improvement Program priority lists of
schools needing roof work and various facility assessments prepared
by contractors, and we discussed modifications/changes to the plans
with DCPS officials.  We also reviewed the DCPS' proposed Capital
Improvement Program Plan for fiscal years 1999-2004, including roof
replacement prioritization schedules, to determine the extent of
roofing repair projects planned for fiscal year 1998 and future
years. 

While we reviewed the information contained in the contract files to
determine the cost per square foot of roofs replaced/repaired, we did
not independently verify the accuracy of the square footage estimates
but instead relied on the measurements prepared by GSA and DCPS
engineering consultant.  We did not review support for payments made
to contractors to determine validity nor did we attempt to determine
whether the cost of individual projects was reasonable.  We reviewed
the work performed by the District's independent public accounting
firm\15 on DCPS capital project funds. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Authority,
DCPS, the District's CFO, GSA, and the U.S.  Department of Education. 
Written comments were received from the Authority, DCPS, and GSA and
are reprinted in appendixes III, IV, and V, respectively.  Oral
comments were obtained from the District's CFO and the Department of
Education.  Those comments have been considered and incorporated in
our report as appropriate.  We conducted our work from October 1997
through February 1998 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\14 Daniel, Mann, Johnson, and Mendenhall (DMJM) is the architectural
and engineering firm that provided technical advice and field
inspection.  DMJM is an independent term contractor, under contract
with GSA, which was made available for DCPS' use. 

\15 The District's independent auditor for the fiscal year 1997
financial statement audit of DCPS was KPMG Peat Marwick LLP. 


   AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING FOR
   ROOF REPAIRS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Based on our review of the information obtained from the Authority,
the District's Chief Financial Officer, the Department of Education,
and the District of Columbia Public Schools' Chief Financial Officer,
funds were available to begin roof repairs on June 20, 1997, when
D.C.  Public Schools closed for the summer vacation.  Table 1 shows
the sources, dates, and amounts of funds received by the Authority. 
By June 1997, the Authority had received on behalf of DCPS a total of
$49.7 million in capital funds, as follows:  $11.5 million in October
1996 from fiscal year 1996 general obligation bond proceeds,
approximately $18 million in March 1997 from the federal government's
sale of the College Construction Loan Insurance Association (Connie
Lee), and $20 million from the June 1997, general obligation bond
proceeds.  In addition, in September 1997, the Authority received
about $36.8 million\16 from the sale of Student Loan Marketing
Association (Sallie Mae) stock warrants, making the total received in
fiscal year 1997 for capital projects about $86.5 million. 



                                Table 1
                
                 Funds Received in Fiscal Year 1997 for
                         DCPS Capital Projects

                                                                 Funds
                                                           received by
                                                                   the
Month                        Source of funds                 Authority
---------------------------  ---------------------------  ------------
October 1996                 1996 Bond Proceeds            $11,500,000
November 1996
December 1996
January 1997
February 1997
March 1997                   Connie Lee Proceeds            18,252,080
April 1997
May 1997
June 1997                    1997 Bond Proceeds             20,000,000
July 1997
August 1997
September 1997               Sallie Mae                     36,789,516
======================================================================
Total                                                      $86,541,596
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  The Authority, District of Columbia CFO, and DCPS CFO. 

Prior to DCPS assuming responsibility for managing the fiscal year
1997 capital program work, the Authority had engaged GSA to oversee
roof repair and other work, such as installing boilers and chillers. 
On November 19, 1996, the Authority entered into a memorandum of
agreement with GSA to provide contract administration and program
management services for those contracts.  On November 27, 1996, GSA
issued a task order to an architectural and engineering consultant
(DMJM) for design work related to five schools.  In February 1997,
construction work began on those five schools.  According to GSA and
DCPS officials, the $11.5 million that the Authority had received in
October 1996 was earmarked for GSA-managed contracts. 

According to DCPS' Chief Operating Officer (COO), when he assumed his
position in January 1997, neither funds nor technical capital project
staff\17 were available to prepare or manage the preparation of scope
of work, drawings, and cost estimates.  While the Authority records
showed that additional funds were available in March 1997, the COO
stated that he began to hire technical capital staff to address
capital program needs in April 1997 after being told that funds were
available.  We were not provided any documentation indicating when
DCPS was notified that additional funds were available for capital
projects on the school facilities. 

In its audit report on the District's financial statements for fiscal
year 1997, the District's independent auditors identified a material
weakness concerning control over transactions involving the
Authority.  The report indicated that the District has not developed
adequate procedures to account for funds held by the Authority and
does not effectively reconcile the amounts which are recorded.  The
auditor noted that the District and the Authority have not developed
procedures to notify each other of amounts anticipated or actually
received by the Authority on behalf of the District. 

On May 19, 1997, DCPS issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)\18
for capital projects it intended to manage, which resulted in
prequalification of nine contractors.  In June 1997, DCPS authorized
consulting architectural and engineering firm, DMJM, which had a
competitively bid contract with GSA, to provide scope of work for
roof replacement at 48 schools.  This work was performed from the
beginning of June to mid-July and included surveying each roof,
reviewing and photographing existing conditions, and developing
technical specifications to establish quality standards and a cost
estimate. 

On July 1, 1997, DCPS issued an Invitation for Bid and Contract
(IFBC) for a single (or package) contract for roof replacement at 15
schools and for work on boilers and chillers at five schools.  DCPS
officials told us that they were not initially successful in
obtaining bidders because contractors were hesitant to bid on such a
large package, involving such diversity of work.  On July 11, 1997,
DCPS issued an addendum to the IFBC, resulting in eight separate,
smaller packages, two of which included the boiler and chiller work. 
The other six included roof replacements on 48 schools.  Contracts
for two of those six packages (15 schools) were awarded.  The
remaining four packages (33 schools) were reissued as another
addendum covering 23 schools.  The remaining 10 schools were deferred
at that time.  Of these 10 schools, 2 were repaired by DCPS in-house
maintenance staff.  The addendum for the 23 schools allowed
prequalified contractors to bid on one or more of those schools; work
on 19 schools was awarded on that basis for a total of 34 schools
under contract.  Roof work for the remaining 12 DCPS managed projects
completed during fiscal year 1997 included 3 from the original IFBC
and 9 others.  DCPS officials told us they urged contractors to
submit bids.  Based on our analysis of contract documents, the
majority (46 schools) of the roof repair work started the third week
in July or later. 

The draft Long-Range Facilities Master Plan called for roof
replacement work at 50 schools.  According to the COO, when the Plan
was presented at the end of February 1997, he had believed that the
work could not be completed until the end of October 1997 but had
hoped that a substantial number of schools could be completed prior
to September 30, 1997.  The COO advised us that on July 10, 1997, he
had informed the Superior Court that the estimated completion dates
based on the best available data, ranged from mid-August 1997 through
September 20, 1997.  He said that these estimates did not consider
the July 11, 1997, court ruling that this type of work could not be
performed while schools were occupied.  Ultimately, because of the
large number of schools involved, it was decided to delay the opening
of D.C.  public schools until September 22, 1997. 


--------------------
\16 The Sallie Mae funds are being used to satisfy fiscal year 1998
capital program needs. 

\17 In the fall of 1996, the then Superintendent dismissed most of
the technical capital project staff.  While DCPS had had an ongoing
contractual relationship with Service Master since 1993, according to
DCPS, Service Master was only responsible for custodial and
maintenance services. 

\18 An RFQ is used to determine whether potential contractors possess
the resources and expertise for construction work. 


   COST OF ROOF REPAIRS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

DCPS records show that as of February 4, 1998, the total cost of the
fiscal year 1997 roof repair project, including change orders and
consulting fees, was about $37 million.  A significant, but not
determinable amount of these costs was attributable to factors other
than what would be strictly interpreted as roof replacement/repair
work.  Among these were structural integrity, fire damage, the
general deterioration from deferred maintenance, and warranty
stipulations concerning deferred maintenance.  Extensive work was
performed to repair and replace masonry, cornices, flashing, coping,
and cupolas, as well as cleaning drains.  For ease of presentation,
we have characterized this work as roof and roof-related work. 

Based on our review and analysis of the data, the average cost per
square foot for roof repair work performed on schools managed by both
DCPS and GSA in fiscal year 1997 was about $20 per square foot--with
costs at individual schools ranging from about $4 to $77.  The
average cost per square foot for GSA-managed contracts was about $13,
whereas the average cost per square foot for DCPS-managed contracts
was about $22 per square foot. 

As part of its fiscal year 1997 Capital Program budget, DCPS had
initially budgeted $22 million for roof work to be performed in
fiscal year 1997.  According to DCPS officials, the $22 million was a
preliminary estimate and did not include amounts for work such as
repairing flashing, masonry, or cornices.  In addition, the $22
million did not include costs to address the complexity of the roof
areas and other issues discussed below, such as the compressed time
schedule.  Further, the priority list of schools on which the $22
million estimate was based was modified several times during fiscal
year 1997.  DCPS officials were aware that they would have to pay a
premium for labor and materials because of the various factors that
affected costs. 

Table 2 summarizes the work performed, cost per square foot, and
other information for the roof work managed by both DCPS and GSA.  In
total, roof work was completed at 61 schools.  DCPS capital project
staff managed roof projects at 46 schools, and its in-house
maintenance staff performed minor work at 7 schools (Cardozo Senior
High, Cleveland Elementary, Eaton Elementary, Eliot Junior High, Hart
Junior High, Janney Elementary, and Winston Elementary).  GSA managed
roof projects at 10 schools.  Included were two schools (Tyler and
Spingarn) where DCPS and GSA managed separate projects.  Table 2 does
not include data for minor work performed at the seven schools
because the cost data were not complete.  Accordingly, that work,
which DCPS officials estimated to have cost about $189,000, is not
included in our computations of total cost or cost per square foot. 



                                                                        Table 2
                                                        
                                                        Summary of Roof Work and Estimated Cost
                                                           per Square Foot, Fiscal Year 1997

                                                                                                                               Amount of
                                                                                              Period                          contract &
                                                                                                  of            Estimate   change orders      Estimated
                       Year     Roof                                                          work\d            d square      as of 2/4/       cost per
School\a              built  areas\b      Material used       Roof-related work\c             (1997)      Days    feet\e            98\f    square foot
------------------  -------  -------  --  ------------------  ----------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------------  -------------
DCPS-managed contracts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Adams ES            1930        6      2-ply modified      Replace damaged gutters,       7/23-8/        35     2,952         $63,000         $21.34
                                          bitumen and slate.  masonry joints, and                 27
                                                              downspouts, and repaint
                                                              roof.

2. Aiton ES            1960        7      2-ply modified      Repair counter flashing.       7/29-9/        36    24,722         540,000          21.84
                                          bitumen.                                                 3

3. Anacostia SHS       1935       22      2-ply modified      Clean drains and piping for    7/23-9/        48    34,679         486,750          14.04
                                          bitumen and metal.  free flow of water. Clean            9
                                                              and reseal mortar joints.
                                                              Replace 2 ventilators and 2
                                                              vent hoods with new units.
                                                              Remove entire skylights,
                                                              reframe openings, and make
                                                              watertight. Replace
                                                              flashing.

4. Bancroft ES         1924        4      2-ply modified      Touch up metal roof with       7/24-9/        45    19,405         289,047          14.90
                                          bitumen and clay.   paint. Reinforce roof                7
                                                              structure to redirect water
                                                              flow.

5. Barnard ES          1926        6      2-ply modified      Repair metal roof and trim.    8/1-9/7        37    23,249         474,620          20.41
                                          bitumen.

6. Beers ES            1942       13      2-ply modified      Complete minor repairs to      7/29-9/        36    32,550         689,889          21.19
                                          bitumen.            masonry.                             3

7. Bell                1915       16      2-ply modified      Repaint skylights, repoint     8/12-9/        28    30,365         537,500          17.70
Multicultural SHS                         bitumen.            masonry, seal counter                9
                                                              flashing, and clean roof of
                                                              debris.

8. Benning ES          1976        6      2-ply modified      No additional work done.       7/23-9/        46    34,414         635,000          18.45
                                          bitumen.                                                 7

9. Birney ES           1950       11      2-ply modified      Clean drains, repair mortar    7/23-9/        42    21,814         474,000          21.73
                                          bitumen.            joints, and remove skylights         3
                                                              and replace with new metal
                                                              covers.

10. Browne JHS         1931       20      2-ply modified      Repair metal flashing,          8/1-9/        40    76,079       1,467,291          19.29
                                          bitumen and metal.  cornices, and downspouts.           10
                                                              Replace drains and various
                                                              masonry.

11. Bruce-Monroe       1973        9      2-ply modified      Remove skylights and replace   7/23-8/        28    40,993         699,700          17.07
ES                                        bitumen and metal.  with new metal covers, clean        20
                                                              drains, repair mortar
                                                              joints, repoint masonry, and
                                                              replace ventilator curb and
                                                              tank.

12. Bunker Hill ES     1938       10      2-ply modified      Install new stainless steel    7/29-9/        42    15,522         463,434          29.86
                                          bitumen and slate.  ridge and flashing. Replace          9
                                                              downspouts. Install new
                                                              tapered insulation on all
                                                              roofs.

13. Burrville ES       1980        4      2-ply modified      Install base layer and         7/23-8/        39    42,844       1,088,000          25.39
                                          bitumen.            tapered insulation over             31
                                                              concrete, and clean and
                                                              recoat metal roof.

14. Cook JF ES         1921        4      2-ply modified      Seal limestone coping and      8/1-9/3        33     8,366         646,432          77.27
                                          bitumen.            flashing, repair ornamental
                                                              cornice, replace glazing in
                                                              skylight, and replace and
                                                              paint fascia boards.

15. Deal JHS           1931       18      2-ply modified      Clean, prime, and repaint      8/1-9/9        39    30,425       1,150,000          37.80
                                          bitumen, slate,     metal roof. Replace glazing
                                          and metal.          at skylight. Replace cupola
                                                              and clean drains and repair
                                                              gutters.

16. Dunbar SHS         1977       37      2-ply modified      Clean metal roof, prime and    7/29-9/        43    93,744       2,380,000          25.39
                                          bitumen.            repaint, seal skylight              10
                                                              glazing joints, and replace
                                                              existing mezzanine covers
                                                              with new membranes.

17. Fletcher-          1980       10      Ethylene Propylene  Repair ventilator hoods,       7/29-8/        29    41,901         610,135          14.56
Johnson ES                                Diene Monomer       masonry walls, parapets, and        27
                                          (EPDM, i.e.,        concrete walkway. Repair
                                          rubber roof).       skylight and counter
                                                              flashing. Install counter
                                                              strips. Reseal parapets.
                                                              Improve drainage.

18. Francis JHS        1927       14      2-ply modified      Repair masonry joints and       8/1-9/        40    53,030         577,255          10.89
                                          bitumen.            coping. Replace roof drains         10
                                                              and storm drain piping on
                                                              two roofs.

19. Gage-              1977       15      2-ply modified      Repair gutters.                8/1-9/8        38    22,818         687,740          30.14
Eckington ES                              bitumen and metal.

20. Garfield ES        1868       15      2-ply modified      Install new tapered            7/29-9/        40    23,267         670,000          28.80
                                          bitumen, slate,     insulation on 2 built-up             7
                                          and metal.          roofs. Remove and replace
                                                              all slate, over new felt, on
                                                              11 roofs.

21. Green ES           1965        6      2-ply modified      Replace counter flashing and   7/30-9/        35    26,269         617,500          23.51
                                          bitumen.            repair concrete.                     3

22. Jefferson JHS      1940       13      2-ply modified      Repair cupola and base,        7/23-8/        34    19,099         547,250          28.65
                                          bitumen, slate,     clean drains, repoint               26
                                          and metal.          masonry, replace skylights,
                                                              provide splash blocks, and
                                                              repair electrical and mortar
                                                              joints. Replace drains and
                                                              reseal coping, move
                                                              satellite dish, and reseal
                                                              chimney.

23. Ketcham ES         1909       13      Slate and tin       Replace flat seam copper.      7/23-9/        42    45,155         189,000           4.19
                                          roof.                                                    3

24. Lafayette ES       1931       24      2-ply modified      Replace gutters, downspouts,   7/23-9/        48    15,228         522,400          34.31
                                          bitumen, slate,     ridge, and flashing. Clean           9
                                          and metal.          drains; repair mortar and
                                                              coping joints; and replace
                                                              skylights.

25. Langdon ES         1930        8      2-ply modified      Repair gutters, flashing,       9/9-9/        18     8,700         287,000          32.99
                                          bitumen and slate.  and pitch pockets. Seal             27
                                                              coping, repoint masonry,
                                                              clean drains, reinstall
                                                              cornice, and repaint two
                                                              cupolas.

26. Leckie ES          1970        1      2-ply modified      Repair damaged flashing.       9/11-9/         3     8,800         112,600          12.80
                                          bitumen.                                                14

27. Lee MD SES         1971       14      2-ply modified      Replace domed skylight.        7/23-8/        39    34,178         909,000          26.60
                                          bitumen.                                                31

28. Ludlow-Taylor      1969        7      2-ply modified      Install new tapered            7/29-8/        32    30,331         525,851          17.34
ES                                        bitumen.            insulation on 7 built-up            30
                                                              roofs.

29. MacFarland JHS     1923       15      2-ply modified      Repoint masonry and replace    7/23-9/        49    11,647         750,675          64.45
                                          bitumen.            broken brick. Replace               10
                                                              severely cracked parging on
                                                              parapet walls with new
                                                              parging or metal panels.
                                                              Remove and recover
                                                              skylights. Repair flashing.
                                                              Replace stone coping. Clean
                                                              drains.

30. Maury ES           1890        8      2-ply modified      Repair roof structure and      7/23-8/        39    17,670         413,000          23.37
                                          bitumen, slate,     masonry, and repaint                31
                                          and metal.          cornices.

31. Nalle ES           1959        5      2-ply modified      No additional work             7/23-8/        35    33,122         281,708           8.51
                                          bitumen.            performed.                          27

32. Orr ES             1974        8      2-ply modified      Remove old built-up roof and   7/23-9/        47    39,724         488,300          12.29
                                          bitumen.            install new roof over                8
                                                              tapered insulation. Install
                                                              new drains.

33. Park View ES       1916       10      2-ply modified      Install 2 new metal roofs      7/29-9/        41    29,110         838,458          28.80
                                          bitumen, metal,     over old metal.                      8
                                          and slate.

34. Phelps SHS         1934       20      2-ply modified      Install new tapered             8/1-9/        40    64,637       1,464,700          22.66
                                          bitumen and slate.  insulation on 18 built-up           10
                                                              roofs. Install new drains.

35. Randle-            1912        6      2-ply modified      Repair or replace gutters      7/23-9/        49    25,664         596,700          23.25
Highlands ES                              bitumen and slate.  and downspouts, clean               10
                                                              drains, and repoint masonry.
                                                              Move cellular equipment.

36. Roosevelt SHS      1932       24      2-ply modified      Replace damaged slate roof     8/12-9/        29    82,186       2,596,820          31.60
                                          bitumen, copper,    and replace skylight                10
                                          and slate.          glazing. Repair parapet,
                                                              cupola, and vents.

37. Ross ES            1896        1      Slate tiles and     Replace existing gutters and   7/23-8/        34     8,000         122,224          15.28
                                          metal.              coping. Install copper snow         26
                                                              guards on slate roof.

38. Shaed ES           1971        3      2-ply modified      Install new tapered            7/29-9/        42    18,139         395,000          21.78
                                          bitumen.            insulation. Remove and               9
                                                              reinstall metal coping.

39. Spingarn SHS       1941       14      2-ply modified      Seal glazing, replace           8/1-9/        40    35,928       1,300,000          36.18
                                          bitumen and slate.  missing ridge flashing,             10
                                                              repoint chimney, and install
                                                              new coping. Repair expansion
                                                              joints, and clean and
                                                              repaint metal steps. Repair
                                                              gutters, skylights, and
                                                              flashing.

40. Stuart-Hobson      1927       14      2-ply modified      Repair flashing and coping.    7/23-8/        28    41,031         663,800          16.18
MS                                        bitumen.                                                20

41. Truesdell ES       1908        9      Metal.              Install new metal roofing      8/1-9/9        39    29,623         697,810          23.56
                                                              over old. Install new
                                                              tapered insulation on 3
                                                              built-up roofs.

42. Tyler ES           1949        3      2-ply modified      No additional work             1/27-2/        16    17,500         129,075           7.38
                                          bitumen.            performed.                          12

43. Washington MM      1912       15      2-ply modified      Wire brush and repaint metal   7/23-8/        28    24,041         411,000          17.10
CDC SHS                                   bitumen and metal.  roof, and install stone             20
                                                              ballast and metal scupper
                                                              guard.

44. West ES            1978        1      Asphalt shingle.    No additional work             5/27-6/        24    21,000          96,850           4.61
                                                              performed.                          20

45. Wilson SHS         1935       16      2-ply modified      Install stainless steel        7/19-9/        50    25,189         450,366          17.88
                                          bitumen and slate.  coping. Repoint masonry              7
                                                              wall. Install metal flashing
                                                              around cupola base.

46. Young ES           1931        8      2-ply modified      Replace exterior cladding on   8/1-9/3        33    31,786         632,563          19.90
                                          bitumen and slate.  cupola. Replace aluminum
                                                              coping and repair coping
                                                              joints. Lower and replace
                                                              drains.

=======================================================================================================================================================
Total DCPS-                                                                                                 36  1,416,89     $30,669,443         $21.65
managed contracts                                                                                                      6
(average days and
average cost per
square foot)


GSA-managed contracts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. Cooke HD ES        1909        2      Fiberglass asphalt  Adjust parapets and replace    2/26-5/        80    27,870        $329,636         $11.83
                                          and 2-ply modified  gravelstop, gutter,                 17
                                          bitumen.            downspouts, and flashing.

48. Houston ES         1961        3      2-ply modified      Replace gutters, flashing,     2/26-6/       112    36,255         512,480          14.14
                                          bitumen.            parapets, and downspouts.           18

49. Merritt ES         1976       11      4-ply modified      Install new tapered             8/4-9/        37    57,000         641,800          11.26
                                          bitumen.            insulation. Repair substrate        10
                                                              as needed.

50. Meyer ES           1962        3      2-ply modified      Replace gutters, flashing,     2/26-6/       100    26,100         315,827          12.10
                                          bitumen.            parapets, and downspouts,            6
                                                              and repaint metal roofing.

51. River Terrace      1952        1      2-ply modified      Replace gutters, flashing,     2/26-5/        86    39,809         467,571          11.75
ES                                        bitumen.            parapets, and downspouts.           23

52. Shadd ES           1955        6      4-ply modified      Install new tapered            7/14-8/        43    31,000         312,950          10.10
                                          bitumen.            insulation. Repair substrate        26
                                                              as needed.

53. Sharpe Health      1959        6      4-ply modified      Install new tapered            7/26-9/        43    41,000         442,015          10.78
SES                                       bitumen.            insulation. Install new              7
                                                              flashing.

54. Spingarn SHS       1941        1      4-ply modified      Replace all roofing            6/17-7/        38    12,000         329,200          27.43
Gym\g                                     bitumen.            materials, including entire         25
                                                              roof deck, which had been
                                                              destroyed by fire. Replace
                                                              all skylights, blocking,
                                                              flashing, and downspouts.

55. Turner ES          1946        1      2-ply modified      Replace gutters, flashing,     2/26-5/        80    26,700         352,626          13.21
                                          bitumen.            parapets, and downspouts.           17

56. Tyler ES\g         1949        3      4-ply modified      Install new tapered            7/10-8/        52    17,500         343,687          19.64
                                          bitumen.            insulation. Repair substrate        31
                                                              as needed. Emergency
                                                              replacement of a section of
                                                              wall.

=======================================================================================================================================================
Total GSA-managed                                                                                           67   315,234      $4,047,792         $12.84
contracts (average
days and average
cost per square
foot)

=======================================================================================================================================================
Average days,                                                                                               42  1,732,13     $34,717,235         $20.04
total square feet,                                                                                                     0
total cost, and
average cost per
square foot

Consulting,                                                                                                                    2,176,054
contract
administration and
construction
management fees

=======================================================================================================================================================
Total, including                                                                                                             $36,893,289
fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  This table includes scope of work and change order
information.  We did not independently determine whether the scope of
work or change orders were appropriate. 

\a CDC - Career Development Center.
ES - Elementary School.
JHS - Junior High School.
MS - Middle School.
SES - Special Education School.
SHS - Senior High School. 

\b Generally, replacement is defined as the removal from the entire
roof of all existing roofing materials, exposing the roof's
structural substrate, followed by the installation of all new
materials.  A roof may be partially replaced, e.g., one-half, is
replaced and the remainder repaired or left as is. 

\c Roof-related work includes repairs and maintenance deemed
necessary--in most cases, long-deferred maintenance. 

\d The date on which work began is the date specified in DCPS's
Notice to Proceed (NTP) to the contractor, or the date of the NTP if
no beginning date was specified.  The date on which work ended is the
date, provided by DCPS, on which all work at that school passed a
"water test" with no leaks or only minor leaks.  We did not determine
the time required for design work for 7 of the 10 GSA-administered
projects. 

\e Estimates of work area, in square feet, to be replaced or repaired
were prepared mostly from the beginning of June to mid-July 1997
(five GSA-administered schools were estimated in late 1996) by an
architectural and engineering consultant or, in a few instances, by
DCPS or GSA staff working with contractors.  Estimates were based on
field observations to determine existing conditions and the specific
location and extent of required work, and included diagrams (and
photographs at most schools) of each roof, narrative descriptions,
quality specifications of material to be installed, and a cost
estimate for each school. 

\f Contract amount consists of original contract amount plus the
amount of subsequent changes to work specifications (change orders). 
Change order costs include those identified by GAO through February
4, 1998, at which time DCPS was continuing to review and approve
additional change orders as received. 

\g This table shows 56 roofing projects.  There were 54 schools where
roof replacements or major repairs were done by contractors in 1997. 
Spingarn SHS and Tyler ES were each worked on under separate
contracts at separate times by DCPS and GSA contractors. 

Source:  Information obtained from District of Columbia Public
Schools, DCPS Capital Projects Division, and General Services
Administration. 

Table 2 indicates a wide range of costs per square foot by school and
by responsible agency (DCPS or GSA).  The roofs worked on by DCPS
contractors had square foot costs ranging from a low of $4.19
(Ketcham Elementary) to a high of $77.27 (Cook Elementary) per square
foot.  In contrast, costs for schools worked on by GSA's contractors
ranged from a low of $10.10 per square foot (Shadd Elementary) to a
high of $27.43 per square foot (Spingarn Gym, where, according to GSA
officials, as a result of a fire, a new roof deck and supporting
structure were installed and a significant amount of asbestos was
removed). 

DCPS officials provided various explanations for the wide range in
costs per square foot among schools such as Cook Elementary ($77.27),
MacFarland Junior High School ($64.45), and Ketcham ($4.19). 
According to DCPS' officials, less than 20 percent of Cook's total
cost pertains to roof replacement.  The majority of the cost was due
to repairing an ornamental cornice around most of the building just
below the roof level.  The cornice had deteriorated and portions of
it were at risk of falling off; therefore, Cook was considered a
major safety concern.  In addition, the cornice had to be repaired
from a crane.  Further, DCPS stated that much work was done to repair
the skylight and to repair coping with new stainless steel covering. 

According to DCPS officials, work at MacFarland Junior High was
awarded to the low bidder of a package, covering nine schools.  DCPS
officials and engineering consultants stated that large amounts of
masonry repair (repointing and replacement of broken brick),
installation of metal panels on high parapet walls, and skylight
repair were performed.  The engineers' original scope of work
describes badly deteriorated mortar joints, broken brick, and
severely cracked parging on parapet walls--with resulting leaks.  In
addition, according to DCPS, repairs were performed on the flashing;
the stone coping was replaced; and the drain was cleaned.  On the
other hand, Ketcham was awarded at the low end.  According to DCPS
officials, the contractor did not give full consideration to the
condition of the roof or the complexity of the work to be done. 


      SEVERAL FACTORS RESULT IN
      HIGHER SQUARE FOOT COSTS FOR
      REPAIRS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Several factors contributed to the costs being considerably higher
than what GSA officials stated has been their experience for roofing
work in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.  GSA's estimates
ranged from $8 to $10 per square foot and reflect work required to
repair and renovate typical flat, large, built-up roof systems that
generally have had a good repair record.  However, a combination of
factors resulted in substantially higher per square foot cost for the
D.C.  Public Schools.  Among these are the compressed schedule under
which most of the 1997 roof work was performed; the diversity and
complexity of the roofs on the D.C.  public school buildings; the
extensive deferred maintenance and other roof-related work, including
additional work required to secure the long-term warranties from
materials suppliers and contractors; and other factors such as the
District's history of paying vendors. 


         COMPRESSED TIME SCHEDULE
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1.1

DCPS-managed work was completed within extremely narrow time frames. 
This tight schedule was caused by the lack of (1) technical capital
project staff, (2) advance project planning to provide an adequate
basis for seeking bids, and (3) the fast approaching opening of
schools slated for September 2, 1997.  This situation resulted in
DCPS scrambling to get contractors in what they found to be a tight
summer market and selecting an approach that while faster for getting
the work done on time, could have been more costly. 

To accelerate the roof work, DCPS relied exclusively on the
design-build approach versus the traditional method.  Under the
traditional method, management separately performs or contracts for
project design to provide the drawings, specifications, reports, and
other materials needed to obtain bids for the actual repair work. 
Thus, separate procurements are involved in first designing and then
contracting for the renovation work.  This approach tends to stretch
out the time frame, but provides a great measure of detail to the
prospective bidder, thus lowering the risk.  In contrast, the
design-build method involves the winning bidder providing both the
design and performing the renovation work.  One of the primary
advantages of using the design-build approach is that the project can
be completed in a shorter time frame because the design phase can be
done concurrently with the construction phase.  However, since the
contractor assumes more risk for the job under the design-build
approach because of unforeseen difficulties, the costs can be higher. 
Given the level of deferred maintenance and the limited time
available both for submitting bids and performing the work, it would
appear that the risk assumed was substantial. 

GSA's earlier involvement allowed it an average of 67 days to
complete its 10 projects.  In contrast, all of the DCPS-managed work
was completed in well under the 67-day average of GSA's work, with
the longest project taking 50 days and the average being 36 days. 
The shortest DCPS project took 3 days.  Despite taking less time, our
analysis of the data on table 2 shows that the DCPS-managed work
involved more roof areas and, as discussed later in greater detail,
more complex work. 

GSA was able to secure contracts earlier in the year as it stated
when the market was not saturated with roof work, which typically
results in lower cost.  Similarly, neighboring school systems in the
Washington, D.C., metropolitan area pointed out that they did not
typically attempt to complete roofing projects in the short time
frames accomplished by DCPS during 1997.  According to a Montgomery
County Public Schools roofing specialist, roof replacement work would
typically be done over the full summer session, from about June 20 to
August 31.  In addition, according to the Fairfax County Public
Schools engineer, contracts are usually awarded in the early part of
the year for work to begin in June and they normally operate on a
2-year planning horizon.  The Fairfax County Public Schools Director
of Design and Construction also told us that depending on the size of
the building and material used, a roofing replacement can take from 6
weeks to 6 months.  The Fairfax County Public Schools engineer
further stated that the cost is generally 20 to 30 percent higher
when a project is put out for bid in the summer. 

DCPS was unsuccessful in obtaining bids on a larger package
advertised on July 1, 1997, for 15 schools and subsequently
repackaged all planned work into 8 smaller packages, which went out
in mid-July.  DCPS officials advised us that they actively solicited
bids to get the work performed and that 2 out of 16 vendors involved
were from outside the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, including
one brought in purposely to handle the clay tile roof project at
Bancroft Elementary. 

DCPS also used a sole source procurement in fiscal year 1997 for one
project, which it performed on an emergency basis.  Work was
completed in 18 days, involving extensive overtime.  DCPS officials
advised us that the Langdon Elementary School project was initiated
after the DCPS Quality Assurance Task Force identified a potential
structural problem shortly before school was to open.  Work started
on September 9, and was substantially completed on September 27,
1997, at a cost of $32.99 per square foot. 

While a common denominator of much of this work was the premium time
(labor costs) involved, DCPS officials told us that they did not
believe they had any clear alternatives.  According to the COO, it
could not cut back on the number of schools or the scope of work at
those schools because of the court's mandate regarding fire code
violations. 


         COMPLEXITY AND DIVERSITY
         OF THE ROOFS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1.2

GSA and the DCPS engineering and architectural consultant agreed that
DCPS roof renovation work was not typical since the roofs were
diverse and complex and had significantly deteriorated.  According to
DCPS officials and the DCPS engineering consultant, the diversity and
complexity of the roofs on the schools resulted in higher costs. 
These officials stated that the roofs were not generally the typical
flat roofs used on more recently built schools but instead are made
up of multiple roof areas and materials.  To illustrate, Fairfax and
Montgomery County school engineers pointed out that 90 percent of
their roofs are generally flat, and use modified bitumen.  In
contrast, 18 of the 56 DCPS and GSA-managed projects worked on during
fiscal year 1997 involved two types of material, such as modified
bitumen and slate, and 7 involved three types of roofing material. 
Inherent in these contrasts are that the newer suburban structures
have larger, flat, easier and safer-to-work on surfaces versus DCPS
often smaller and sloped surfaces using metal and slate. 

The number of roof areas is also a factor.  The number of roof areas
that were replaced/repaired at each school ranged from 1 (at Leckie
Elementary) to as many as 37 roof areas (at Dunbar Senior High
School).  Forty had 6 or more areas repaired; 25 had at least 10; and
6 had 20 or more.  (Appendix II illustrates a typical District of
Columbia public school roof, where multiple roof areas were
replaced/repaired.  It also highlights some of the technical
features, including cupolas and skylights.)

According to the DCPS engineering consultant, different types of
roofing specialists were required to address the diversity of the
roofs.  The material that was most frequently used to replace these
roofs was two-ply modified bitumen.\19

Table 2 reveals that in addition to two-ply modified bitumen, a
variety of materials were used to repair the roofs, such as slate
tiles, clay tiles, metal, asphalt shingle, and fiberglass asphalt. 
Some materials are more expensive than others.  Metal and slate roofs
are commonly considered more expensive than a modified bitumen roof. 
In addition, DCPS officials stated that a subcontractor was brought
in from another state to repair clay tiles since no local firm was
available at the time work had to be completed. 


--------------------
\19 A roof membrane (the waterproofing layer between the roof
substrate and the top surface) with two layers (plies) of fiberglass
or saturated felt, applied with alternate layers of asphalt or coal
tar mixture (bitumen), which has been rubberized or plasticized
(modified) to improve durability.  According to DCPS, two-ply
modified bitumen was primarily used because it was recommended by its
consultant and the Environmental Protection Agency as sufficient for
the District's climate and as relatively simple and more economical
to install than three or four plies. 


         DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND
         WARRANTIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1.3

In recent years, it has been widely documented\20 that the majority
of DCPS roofs were badly deteriorated because maintenance had been
deferred for many years.  DCPS officials stated that the $22 million,
which was budgeted for roof repairs at the beginning of fiscal year
1997 did not assume funding for deferred maintenance and the 20-year
manufacturers' warranties.  The manufacturers' warranties were
conditional on certain deferred maintenance and other roof-related
work being done. 

Table 2 reveals that for the majority of the schools, a substantial
amount of roof-related or deferred maintenance work was performed. 
For instance, common roof-related work included replacing skylights
and gutters, repairing coping and flashing, repointing masonry, and
cleaning drains.  In addition, many roofs required tapered
insulation, resealing or repointing of parapets, and structural
reinforcement of the roof to redirect the water flow.  According to
DCPS officials, many of the roofs and supporting structures had to be
completely replaced because they were badly deteriorated and beyond
patching.  They stated that patching would have been only a
short-term solution to a long-standing problem.  For example,
Spingarn Senior High School repairs\21 averaged $36.18 per square
foot because of the major structural work required.  DCPS officials
informed us that the entire slate roof was badly deteriorated and
that daylight could be seen from inside the attic.  Slate on 14 roof
areas was replaced.  To support the new slate, new wood blocking was
required and 700 feet of new coping was installed.  In addition, we
were told that numerous roof expansion joints were repaired and that
the triangular pediment over the colonnade at the front entrance was
also repaired. 

The bid solicitation process used in the replacement of DCPS roofs
required contractors to provide 2-year guarantees on workmanship and
20-year manufacturers' warranties on materials.  DCPS officials
stated that the deferred maintenance work was necessary to obtain the
guarantees/warranties that they had required.\22 According to DCPS
officials, manufacturers perform site inspections to ensure that the
roofs are installed according to their design specifications and that
factors, such as flashing and caulking, which can contribute to
premature roof failure, are up to industry standards.  DCPS officials
told us that as of January 26, 1998, it had received 20-year
manufacturers' warranties for 44 roof projects and 2-year contractor
guarantees for 35 roof projects. 

DCPS officials also stated that while some of the school roofs that
were replaced this summer may have had existing warranties, they
believe that since the roofs were not well maintained and protected,
DCPS would not have prevailed in a warranty claim.\23 For example,
the officials cited numerous cases in which inspections of leaky
roofs disclosed that large amounts of debris, or even mattresses, had
been allowed to accumulate.  To the extent that such items retain
water, they keep the roof surface saturated, thus accelerating
deterioration of the roof membrane and substrate. 


--------------------
\20 See footnotes 2 and 10 in this report. 

\21 DCPS managed this project at Spingarn Senior High School. 

\22 In order for these warranties to remain in force, DCPS is
required to perform regular preventive maintenance.  DCPS officials
informed us that school maintenance personnel are now required to
inspect each roof every 6 months and to perform any needed repairs. 

\23 In addition, DCPS officials stated that because of poor
recordkeeping, they could not identify schools that were under
existing manufacturers' warranties.  However, they informed us that
they had started the process to assemble a database of information on
the roof replacements and repairs and that they will include
information on warranties. 


         OTHER FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1.4

The District had a well-publicized poor payment history in recent
years.  For example, in fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, the
District delayed payments owed to vendors and Medicaid providers
because it had cash flow problems.  Consequently, contracting firms
have expressed reluctance to do business with the District, and this,
according to DCPS officials, became quite evident in the summer of
1997 when it issued its invitation for bids.  Contractors were
particularly reluctant to submit bids for large contracts (packages),
fearing that DCPS would not be able to honor its obligations. 
Therefore, according to DCPS officials, contractors had to be urged
to submit proposals, which DCPS officials believe could have resulted
in DCPS paying a higher than normal cost to repair the roofs. 


      COST ESTIMATES VERSUS
      CONTRACT AMOUNTS AND CHANGE
      ORDERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

Given the nature of the work and the circumstances involved, the
costs have not differed significantly from what was expected before
contracting for this work.  The aggregate estimated cost for the roof
work managed by both GSA and DCPS in fiscal year 1997 was
approximately $31.7 million, about 3.5 percent less than the $32.7
million contract amounts.  As of February 4, 1998, DCPS had provided
us with change orders totaling about $2 million, which brings the
preliminary total to about $34.7 million, or about 10 percent over
the consultants' cost estimates.  In addition, DCPS incurred about
$2.1 million for consulting, contract administration, and
construction management fees.\24

Prior to contracting out the roof work, DCPS had engaged an
architectural and engineering firm, with whom GSA had a contract
under which it could issue task orders, to develop cost estimates of
the roof replacement/repair work.  Almost all estimates were prepared
by one of two architectural and engineering consultants,\25 and in a
few instances DCPS or GSA staff worked with contractors to prepare
estimates.  Estimates were based on field observations to determine
existing conditions and the specific location and extent of required
work, and included diagrams (and, for most schools, photographs) of
each roof, narrative descriptions, quality specifications of material
to be installed, and a cost estimate for each school. 

As of February 4, 1998, DCPS had received proposals for change orders
pertaining to 27 schools for a total of about $2 million.  In most
cases, the proposals resulted from requiring additional work beyond
the original scope of work, such as structural repairs of decks and
work to clean or replace drains, flashing, and coping.  About 60
percent, or $1.2 million, of the change orders are associated with
additional costs at two schools, Browne Junior High and Roosevelt
Senior High.  About 35 percent of this $1.2 million was a result of
premium labor rates required to accelerate the work, and the
remainder was primarily for additional masonry work, installation of
a new metal roof, and drain and gutter repairs. 


--------------------
\24 Of this amount, about $1.6 million went to DMJM, about $300,000
to GSA, and about $300,000 to Sverdrup Facilities, Inc. 

\25 The two architectural and engineering firms are DMJM and
Sverdrup.  Sverdrup prepared scope of work and estimates for the
first five of the GSA-managed contracts. 


   PLANNED ROOF REPAIRS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

As of February 4, 1998, the DCPS Capital Improvement Program budget
indicates that about $35 million is expected to be spent on 40 school
roof projects in fiscal year 1998.  According to the DCPS COO, DCPS
has about $41.8 million\26 available to enable it to get an early
start with the procurement process. 

According to DCPS officials, on October 31, 1997, they engaged an
engineering consultant to (1) identify the scope of work and (2)
develop cost estimates.  The scope of work and cost estimates for 12
schools were completed in fiscal year 1997.  DCPS officials told us
that as of February 27, 1998, the engineering consultant had
inspected an additional 19 school roofs and developed scope of work
and cost estimates that reflect direct labor and materials costs and
other costs, such as overhead, general conditions, bond and
insurance, and contingencies.  According to DCPS officials, scope of
work and cost estimates for the remaining nine schools will be
prepared in May 1998. 

DCPS officials informed us that as of November 3, 1997, they had
completed roof repair work on five schools for which the scope of
work and cost estimates had been completed in fiscal year 1997.\27
DCPS officials anticipate that roof repair work at the remaining 35
schools will begin in the spring and will be completed during the
summer 1998 recess.  Because the lawsuit from which the court ruling
on performing roof work while the schools are occupied has been
settled, DCPS expects to be able to work during the school year using
similar precautions as are employed in neighboring school
jurisdictions.  It advised us that in the event of emergency roof
repairs, DCPS has a plan that involves relocating students so that
the necessary work can be completed during the school year.  This
earlier start than for fiscal year 1997 should allow more time to
have roof work conducted under normal conditions, possibly resulting
in lower costs to the District Government. 

The District of Columbia Public Schools proposed Capital Improvements
Plan for fiscal years 1999-2004 indicates that an additional $63
million in roof replacement is anticipated during this period. 
According to a Facilities Planning, Programming and Quality Assurance
Division official, the $63 million projection is an estimate for
budget and planning purposes and the amount is not associated with
particular schools. 

DCPS expects to use proceeds from the sale of schools to help finance
fiscal year 1998 and later school projects.  Section 5206(a) of the
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, authorizes the
Authority to dispose of certain school property and deposit the
proceeds in the Board of Education Real Property Maintenance and
Improvement Fund.\28

Currently, DCPS has 45 closed schools, which it intends to either
sell, lease, lease with the option to buy, or develop as
public/private partnerships.  DCPS sold 1 school in the fall of
1997\29 and expects to generate $20 million from the sale of an
additional 15 schools in fiscal year 1998.  In addition, the
Authority has agreed to commit a minimum of 27.5 percent of the
District's general fund long-term financing authority (annual bond
proceeds) toward completion of the repairs required by the Long Range
Facilities Master Plan. 


--------------------
\26 This amount is the proceeds from the sale of Sallie Mae stock
warrants ($36.8 million) and the proceeds ($5 million) from the
continued use of the name Sallie Mae as a trademark. 

\27 These five schools are Garnet-Patterson, Paul, Taft, Leckie, and
Ballou. 

\28 Public Law No.  104-208, 110 Stat.  3009-508, D.C.  Code Ann.  
47-392.25. 

\29 Dent Elementary was sold for $410,000. 


   COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We received comments from the Authority, the District's Chief
Financial Officer, DCPS, GSA, and the U.S.  Department of Education
on a draft of this report.  Written comments from the Authority,
DCPS, and GSA are reprinted in appendixes III, IV, and V,
respectively. 

Those commenting generally agreed with the facts presented in this
report.  The Authority noted that most of the significant events and
time frames outlined in the report are consistent with its records. 
DCPS stated that our major findings on the cost and conduct of the
1997 upper building stabilization program are accurate.  The
District's CFO, GSA and the U.S.  Department of Education agreed with
the report as related to their respective activities. 

Both the Authority and DCPS offered their perspectives on the
availability of funds issue discussed in the report.  DCPS stated
that funds were not available to DCPS for capital projects until
April 1997.  In that regard, the Authority stated that it advises the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District regarding the
availability of funds which, in turn, is responsible for
communicating with District agencies, including DCPS. 

The Authority and DCPS also suggested additional discussion of the
impact of the D.C.  Superior Court ruling related to the roof repair
projects.  The Authority noted that the additional requirements
imposed by the court ruling increased the difficulty of project
management and added to the cost of the repair program.  Similarly,
in several sections of its comments to our draft report, DCPS
referred to the July 11, 1997, court order as imposing restrictions,
compressing the work schedule, and ultimately delaying the opening of
all District public schools until September 22, 1997. 

Regarding the availability of funds to DCPS during fiscal year 1997,
as discussed in the report, we were not provided documentation that
would establish when DCPS was notified that the Authority had funds
available for capital projects.  This communication issue, which
apparently is not isolated to the DCPS capital projects funding, was
highlighted in the most recent report of the independent public
accounting firm hired by the District.  As noted in our report, the
independent auditors identified a material weakness concerning
control over transactions involving the Authority.  The report
indicated that the District has not developed adequate procedures to
account for funds held by the Authority and does not effectively
reconcile the amounts which are recorded.  The auditor noted that the
District and the Authority have not developed procedures to notify
each other of the amounts anticipated or actually received by the
Authority on behalf of the District. 

Concerning the impact of the court involvement, as discussed in our
report, there were a number of factors that were either within or
outside the managerial control of the Authority and current or former
DCPS management.  We do not offer any view on whether any one of
these factors was the dominant reason for either the cost or timing
issues concerning the roof repairs or whether current DCPS management
could have reasonably mitigated those effects. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 15 days
from the date of the report.  At that time, we will send copies of
this report to the Ranking Minority Member of your Subcommittee and
the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations and their Subcommittees on the District
of Columbia and the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.  We will also
send copies to the Chairman of the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, the Chief
Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, and the Chief
Executive Officer of the District of Columbia Public Schools.  Copies
will be made available to others upon request. 

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.  If you
or your staff need further information, please call me at (202)
512-4476. 

Sincerely yours,

Gloria L.  Jarmon
Director, Health, Education, and Human
 Services Accounting and Financial
 Management Issues


KEY DATES RELATED TO FISCAL YEAR
1997 ROOF REPAIRS AT D.C.  PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
=========================================================== Appendix I

------------  --------------------------------------------------------
March 3,      Parents United for the District of Columbia, an
1992          education advocacy group, filed a lawsuit against the
              former Mayor, the District of Columbia, and the Fire
              Chief of the D.C. Fire Department alleging failure of
              the D.C. officials to adequately inspect for and remedy
              violations of the District of Columbia Fire Prevention
              Code and other safety hazards in the public schools.

May 2, 1994   A trial was held regarding the Parents United lawsuit.

June 10,      The trial resulted in a D.C. Superior Court Order
1994          requiring: (1) the D.C. Fire Chief to conduct semiannual
              inspections of every public school in the District and
              to submit reports of fire code violations to the Court
              and the plaintiffs, (2) the Fire Chief to order the
              immediate closing of any public school building in D.C.
              with life threatening fire code violations, including
              ruptured ceilings, and (3) the plaintiffs to file
              reports with the Court detailing the abatement or the
              abatement plan for the fire code violations noted.

August 14,    The District of Columbia Public School Superintendent's
1995          Task Force on Education Infrastructure for the 21st
              Century issued the Preliminary Facilities Master Plan
              2005 for the District of Columbia Public Schools. The
              task force was established by the Superintendent of D.C.
              schools to address the aging and physical deterioration
              of the D.C. public schools.

April 26,     Public Law 104-134 was enacted, requiring the General
1996          Services Administration to provide technical assistance
              to the District of Columbia Public Schools and to assist
              the District of Columbia Public Schools in developing a
              facilities revitalization plan. The General Services
              Administration was to consider the Preliminary
              Facilities Master Plan 2005 for the District of Columbia
              Public Schools in the development of the facilities
              revitalization plan.

July 25,      A Memorandum of Understanding between the General
1996          Services Administration and the Superintendent of the
              District of Columbia Public Schools was signed,
              requiring the General Services Administration to provide
              technical assistance and related services to the
              District of Columbia in the development of a repair and
              capital improvement program for the District of Columbia
              Public Schools.

September 9,  Public Law 104-194, the 1997 Appropriations Act for the
1996          District of Columbia, was enacted, providing $9.2
              million for school repairs in a restricted line item.

September     Public Law 104-208 was enacted, providing Student Loan
30, 1996      Marketing Association (Sallie Mae) and College
              Construction Loan Insurance Association (Connie Lee)
              funds as well as transferring the $9.2 million from
              Public Law 104-194 to the Authority to finance D.C.
              public school facility construction and repair. The law
              also gave the Authority authorization to contract out
              for public school repair, in consultation with the
              General Services Administration. Further, the General
              Services Administration was required to assist in the
              short-term management of the repairs and capital
              improvements.

October 3,    The Authority received $11.5 million from fiscal year
1996          1996 general obligation bond proceeds to be used for
              D.C. public school repairs and capital improvements.

November 15,  The Authority restructured the District of Columbia
1996          Public School by establishing a Board of Trustees and
              replacing the then Superintendent of Schools with a new
              Chief Executive Officer.

November 19,  A Memorandum of Understanding between the General
1996          Services Administration and the Authority was signed,
              requiring the General Services Administration to provide
              program management services to assist in the short-term
              management of the repairs and capital improvements for
              the District schools, per Public Law 104-208.

January 1,    The District of Columbia Public School Chief Executive
1997          Officer hired a Chief Operating Officer to manage and
              implement the school facilities improvement program.

February 18,  The General Services Administration provided the
1997          District of Columbia Public Schools with a facilities
              revitalization plan as agreed to in the Memorandum of
              Understanding dated July 25, 1996.

February 26,  The General Services Administration issued Notices to
1997          Proceed to roofing contractors for certain D.C. public
              schools.

February 28,  The District of Columbia Public Schools submitted a
1997          draft Long-Range Facilities Master Plan to the D.C.
              Council for approval. The plan included a priority
              listing of 50 schools to receive roof replacement in
              Fiscal Year 1997.

March 4,      The Authority received $18.25 million from the federal
1997          government's sale of Connie Lee to be used for D.C.
              public school repairs and facility construction.

April 4,      The District of Columbia Public Schools submitted a
1997          request to D.C. Office of Budget and Planning for $28.5
              million for capital improvements.

April 7,      District of Columbia Public School Chief Operating
1997          Officer hired a Chief of Capital Projects to direct the
              program management, program planning and control, and
              design review team managers.

April 14,     The Authority requested $36.85 million in supplemental
1997          funds from Congress for emergency public school facility
              improvements. Congress declined to provide any
              additional funds.

April 25,     The District of Columbia Public Schools submitted a
1997          revised Long-Range Facilities Master Plan to the D.C.
              Council for approval. The plan was also submitted to the
              Congress. The plan included a priority list of 50
              schools to receive roof replacement in fiscal year 1997.
              The priority list changed slightly--Tyler was added to
              the list of school roof projects to be managed by the
              District of Columbia Public Schools, and Spingarn no
              longer appeared on the list of school roof projects to
              be managed by the General Services Administration.

May 19, 1997  The District of Columbia Public Schools issued a Request
              for Qualifications to pre-qualify potential roofing
              contractors.

June 4, 1997  The Authority received $20 million from the May 28,
              1997, general bond proceeds to be used for school
              repairs and capital improvements.

June 20,      District of Columbia Public Schools recessed for summer
1997          vacation.

July 1, 1997  The District of Columbia Public Schools issued an
              Invitation for Bid and Contract notice seeking a single
              contractor to perform 15 roof repair projects and 5
              boiler/chiller projects. No bids were received.

July 10,      The District of Columbia Public School Chief Operating
1997          Officer testified before D.C. Superior Court that there
              were 47 school roof repair projects scheduled and that
              some roofs would not be completed before September 20,
              1997. The 47 schools listed differed from the priority
              list included in the April 25, 1997, Long-Range
              Facilities Master Plan. For example, the 47 school roof
              repair projects did not indicate that roof repairs would
              be performed at 13 of the schools on the roof repair
              list included in the Long-Range Facilities Master Plan,
              dated April 25, 1997.

July 11,      A District of Columbia Superior Court judge reiterated
1997          the June 10, 1994, Order and stated that schools would
              be closed while roof work was performed. The Order also
              required the District of Columbia Public Schools to
              submit a plan, by August 18, 1997, to the Superior Court
              detailing alternative sites for students to report to on
              September 2, 1997, the first day of the 1997-1998 school
              year.

July 11,      The District of Columbia Public Schools issued an
1997          amendment to the July 1, 1997, Invitation for Bid and
              Contract notice. The amended Invitation for Bid and
              Contract notice divided the required construction work
              into packages. There were six roof repair packages at a
              total of 48 schools, and two boiler/chiller packages at
              a total of 16 schools. Contractors were asked to submit
              bids on one, more, or all project packages.

              The schools scheduled for roof repairs indicated on the
              Invitation for Bid and Contract differed somewhat from
              the schools scheduled for roof repairs indicated on the
              July 11, 1997, Order. For example, the Invitation for
              Bid and Contract included roof repair projects at seven
              schools that were not listed on the July 11, 1997,
              Order.

July 14,      The District of Columbia Public Schools submitted a
1997          request to D.C. Office of Budget and Planning for an
              additional $20 million for capital improvements.

July 17,      The District of Columbia Public Schools submitted a
1997          revised Long-Range Facilities Master Plan to the D.C.
              Council for approval. The plan included a priority
              listing of 56 schools to receive roof replacement in
              fiscal year 1997. The priority list included thirteen
              schools that were not indicated in the July 11, 1997,
              Court Order and 6 schools that were not on the amended
              (July 11, 1997) Invitation for Bid and Contract.

July 23,      The District of Columbia Public Schools issued first
1997          Notices to Proceed to roofing contractors.

August 18,    The District of Columbia Public Schools submitted a
1997          report to the Superior Court stating that there was no
              contingency plan for relocating students and staff who
              attend those schools where roof repairs were taking
              place, and that the plan was to delay the start of the
              school year until roof repairs were completed (September
              22, 1997).

September 2,  The Authority received $36.8 million of Sallie Mae
1997          proceeds (from stock warrants) to be used for school
              repairs and capital improvements.

September     District of Columbia public schools opened, commencing
22, 1997      the 1997-1998 school year.

October 6,    The Authority received $5 million of Sallie Mae proceeds
1997          (from the sale of naming rights) to be used for school
              repairs and capital improvements.

November 3,   A settlement was reached among Parents United, the
1997          Mayor, the Fire Chief, and the District of Columbia
              Public Schools Chief Executive Officer, which laid the
              foundation for ensuring that D.C. public schools were
              free of Fire Code violations and requiring the District
              of Columbia Public Schools to continue the necessary
              repairs and capital improvements to the school
              buildings, as indicated in the Long-Range Facilities
              Master Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A TYPICAL DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SCHOOL WITH MULTIPLE ROOF AREAS
========================================================== Appendix II



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  DCPS Capital Program Division. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE
AUTHORITY
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority's letter
dated February 20, 1998. 

GAO COMMENTS

1.  Our report does not address whether ample funding was available
for the emergency school repair program during fiscal year 1997. 
However, table 1 in the report shows that DCPS had about this same
amount of funds ($86.5 million) available for capital projects during
the fiscal year. 

2.  This point is discussed in the Comments and Our Evaluation
section of the report. 

3.  We have augmented our discussion in the Planned Roof Repairs
section of the report to refer to the additional $5 million from
Sallie Mae.  The report refers to the Authority's commitment to
provide a minimum percentage of the District's general fund long-term
financing authority (annual bond proceeds) for completion of repairs
required by the Long-Range Facilities Master Plan. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on the District of Columbia Public
Schools' letter dated February 17, 1998. 

GAO COMMENTS

1.  This point is discussed in the Comment and Our Evaluation section
of the report. 

2.  We modified this section of the report slightly.  Of the 46
schools at which DCPS-managed roof work during fiscal year 1997, DCPS
received three to five bids for 29 schools; 2 bids for each of 9
schools; and one bid for each of the remaining 8. 

3.  We modified the report to provide additional information
concerning bidder risk associated with the extensive deferred
maintenance and the short time frames provided for submitting bids
and completing the work. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
========================================================== Appendix II


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI

ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Hodge Herry, Assistant Director
Barbara Shields, Audit Manager
Bonnie Derby, Senior Auditor
Fred Evans, Senior Auditor
Lou Fernheimer, Senior Evaluator
Kwabena Ansong, Auditor
Mel Mench, Senior Assistant Director
Meg Mills, Communication Analyst

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Richard Cambosos, Senior Attorney


GLOSSARY
=========================================================== Appendix 0


      ASPHALT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.1

A petroleum compound, dark brown or black in color, used in the
manufacture of roofing products. 


      BALLAST
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.2

Coarse stone, gravel slag, etc., used as an underlayer for poured
concrete. 


      BITUMEN
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.3

Asphalt or coal-tar pitch. 


      BLOCKING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.4

Sections of wood built into a roof assembly, usually attached above
the deck and below the membrane or flashing, used to stiffen the deck
around an opening, act as a stop for insulation, support a curb, or
to serve as a nailer for attachment of the membrane and/or flashing. 


      BUILT-UP ROOFING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.5

A continuous semiflexible roof covering of lamination, or plies, or
saturated or coated plies alternated with layers of bitumen, surfaced
with mineral aggregate or asphaltic materials. 


      CANT STRIP
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.6

A continuous strip of flashing forming a triangle with a structural
deck and a wall or other vertical surface. 


      CLADDING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.7

A material used as the exterior wall enclosure of a building. 


      COLONNADE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.8

A number of columns supporting one side of a roof. 


      COPING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:0.9

Top covering of a wall that is exposed to the weather, usually made
of metal, masonry, or stone.  It is preferably sloped to shed water
back onto the roof. 


      COUNTERFLASHING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.10

Metal strips used to prevent moisture from entering the top edge of
roof flashing, as on a chimney or wall. 


      CUPOLA
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.11

A terminal structure, square or round, rising above a main roof. 
While generally ornamental, a cupola can provide for ventilation. 


      CORNICE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.12

The molded and projecting horizontal member that crowns a wall. 


      DECK
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.13

The structural surface to which a roof covering system is applied. 


      DESIGN
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.14

The architectural concept of a building as represented by plans,
elevations, renderings, and other drawings. 


      DESIGN-BUILD
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.15

The design-build approach gives a single contractor the
responsibility for both designing and constructing a project rather
than separating the responsibilities among a number of contractors. 


      DOWNSPOUT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.16

A conduit that carries runoff water from a scupper, conductor head,
or gutter of a building to a lower level, or to the ground or storm
water runoff system. 


      DRAIN
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.17

An outlet or other device used to collect and direct the flow of
runoff water from a roof area. 


      EPDM
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.18

Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (rubber roof). 


      ESTIMATE (SCOPE)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.19

A forecast of construction cost based on a detailed analysis of
materials and labor.  Also referred to as a conceptual estimate or
parametric estimate. 


      EXPANSION JOINT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.20

A structural separation between two building elements that allows
free movement without damage to the roofing or waterproofing system. 


      FASCIA
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.21

A vertical or steeply sloped roof or trim located at the perimeter of
a building.  Typically, it is a border for the low-slope roof system
that waterproofs the interior portions of the building. 


      FLASHING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.22

Strips of copper, aluminum, galvanized sheet metal, or similar
materials used along walls, dormers, valleys, and chimneys to prevent
moisture seepage. 


      FLOOD TEST
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.23

The procedure in which a controlled amount of water is temporarily
retained over a horizontal surface to determine the effectiveness of
the waterproofing. 


      GLAZING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.24

Cutting and fitting panes of glass into frames. 


      GRAVEL STOP
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.25

A low profile upward-projecting metal edge flashing with a flange
along the roof side, usually formed from sheet or extruded metal,
designed to prevent loose gravel from washing off the roof and to
provide a finished edge detail for the built-up roofing assembly. 


      GUTTER
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.26

A channelled component installed along the downslope perimeter of a
roof to carry runoff water from the roof to the drain leaders or
downspouts. 


      INSULATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.27

Materials designed to reduce the flow of heat either into or from a
building. 


      MASONRY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.28

Anything constructed of material such as brick, stone, concrete
blocks, or ceramic blocks. 


      MODIFIED BITUMEN
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.29

A roofing bitumen which generally has been rubberized or plasticized
to provide greater elasticity, flexibility, and improved working
characteristics. 


      PARAPET
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.30

A low, retaining wall at the edge of a roof.  Usually an upward
extension of a building's exterior curtain wall. 


      PARGING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.31

In masonry construction, a coat of cement (generally containing
dampproofing ingredients) on the face of rough masonry, the earth
side of foundation, or basement walls. 


      PEDIMENT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.32

A triangular face forming the gable of a two-pitched roof. 


      PITCH
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.33

The incline, or slope, of a roof. 


      PITCH POCKET
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.34

A flanged metal container placed around a column or other roof
penetrating element and filled with flashing cement to seal the area
around the penetration. 


      PLY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.35

A single layer of organic or inorganic roofing material in a roof
membrane or roof system. 


      REPLACEMENT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.36

The practice of removing an existing roof system down to the roof
deck and replacing it with a new roofing system. 


      REPOINTING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.37

The process of removing deteriorated mortar from an existing masonry
joint and troweling new mortar or other filler into the joint. 


      REROOFING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.38

The process of recovering, or tearing off and replacing an existing
roof system. 


      RIDGE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.39

Where the rising sides of the roof come together.  The highest point
of the roof. 


      ROOFING SYSTEM
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.40

An assembly of interacting roof structures and components designed to
be weatherproof, and normally to insulate the building's top surface. 


      SADDLE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.41

A relatively small raised substrate or structure that directs surface
water to drains or a valley; is often constructed like a small hip
roof or like a pyramid with a diamond shaped base. 


      SCUPPER
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.42

An opening cut through the wall of a building through which water can
drain from a floor or roof. 


      SHINGLE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.43

Roof covering made from asphalt, fiberglass, wood, aluminum, tile,
slate, or other water-shedding material. 


      SKYLIGHT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.44

A roof accessory, set over an opening in the roof, designed to admit
light.  Normally transparent, and mounted on a raised framed curb. 


      SPLASH BLOCK
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.45

A small masonry block laid on the ground below a downspout to carry
roof drainage away from a building. 


      SUBSTRATE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.46

See Deck. 


      TAPERED INSULATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.47

A strip used to elevate and slope the roof at the perimeter and at
the curbs. 


      TRADITIONAL METHOD
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.48

In traditional project organization, the owner hires the services of
a design team and a construction team.  The design team is
responsible for transmitting owner/user needs in plan documents
describing the physical form for the construction team to assemble. 


      VALLEY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.49

Where two roofs coming from different horizontal directions meet and
form an internal angle. 


      WING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 0:0.50

Roof section broadly extended or projecting at an angle from the main
building. 


*** End of document. ***