United States General Accounting Office

GAO 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

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Accounting and Information

Management Division

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 repair1

 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.

Background 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,

1

As discussed in this report, roof work was done at 61 schools during 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).

Page 1 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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 failure3

 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 19977

 authorized the Authority to contract with private entities to carry

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.).

Page 2 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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

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.

10GSA 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.

11The 2lst Century School Fund is a nonprofit organization, which focuses on the modernization of

public school facilities.

12In 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.

Page 3 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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.

Results in Brief 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:

Page 4 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

• 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 1999-200413 indicates

that an additional $63 million is anticipated for roof replacement/repairs

during this period.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

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.

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

Page 5 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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

14Daniel, 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.

Page 6 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

the District’s independent public accounting firm15 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.

Availability of

Funding for Roof

Repairs

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 million16 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.

15The District’s independent auditor for the fiscal year 1997 financial statement audit of DCPS was

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP.

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

Page 7 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

Table 1: Funds Received in Fiscal Year

1997 for DCPS Capital Projects

Month Source of funds

Funds received

by the 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 staff17

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

17In 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.

Page 8 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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

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

construction work.

Page 9 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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.

Cost of Roof Repairs 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

Page 10 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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.

Page 11 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

Table 2: Summary of Roof Work and

Estimated Cost per Square Foot, Fiscal

Year 1997

Schoola

Year

built

Roof

areasb Material used

DCPS-managed contracts

1. Adams ES 1930 6 2-ply modified bitumen and

slate.

2. Aiton ES 1960 7 2-ply modified bitumen.

3. Anacostia SHS 1935 22 2-ply modified bitumen and

metal.

4. Bancroft ES 1924 4 2-ply modified bitumen and

clay.

5. Barnard ES 1926 6 2-ply modified bitumen.

6. Beers ES 1942 13 2-ply modified bitumen.

7. Bell Multicultural SHS 1915 16 2-ply modified bitumen.

8. Benning ES 1976 6 2-ply modified bitumen.

9. Birney ES 1950 11 2-ply modified bitumen.

10. Browne JHS 1931 20 2-ply modified bitumen and

metal.

11. Bruce-Monroe ES 1973 9 2-ply modified bitumen and

metal.

j

12. Bunker Hill ES 1938 10 2-ply modified bitumen and

slate.

13. Burrville ES 1980 4 2-ply modified bitumen.

14. Cook JF ES 1921 4 2-ply modified bitumen.

15. Deal JHS 1931 18 2-ply modified bitumen,

slate, and metal.

16. Dunbar SHS 1977 37 2-ply modified bitumen.

Page 12 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

Roof-related workc

Period of

workd (1997) Days

Estimated

square feete

Amount of contract

& change orders as

of 2/4/98f

Estimated cost per

square foot

Replace damaged gutters, masonry joints,

and downspouts, and repaint roof.

7/23-8/27 35 2,952 $63,000 $21.34

Repair counter flashing. 7/29-9/3 36 24,722 540,000 21.84

Clean drains and piping for free flow of

water. Clean and reseal mortar joints.

Replace 2 ventilators and 2 vent hoods with

new units. Remove entire skylights, reframe

openings, and make watertight. Replace

flashing.

7/23-9/9 48 34,679 486,750 14.04

Touch up metal roof with paint. Reinforce

roof structure to redirect water flow.

7/24-9/7 45 19,405 289,047 14.90

Repair metal roof and trim. 8/1-9/7 37 23,249 474,620 20.41

Complete minor repairs to masonry. 7/29-9/3 36 32,550 689,889 21.19

Repaint skylights, repoint masonry, seal

counter flashing, and clean roof of debris.

8/12-9/9 28 30,365 537,500 17.70

No additional work done. 7/23-9/7 46 34,414 635,000 18.45

Clean drains, repair mortar joints, and

remove skylights and replace with new

metal covers.

7/23-9/3 42 21,814 474,000 21.73

Repair metal flashing, cornices, and

downspouts. Replace drains and various

masonry.

8/1-9/10 40 76,079 1,467,291 19.29

Remove skylights and replace with new

metal covers, clean drains, repair mortar

joints, repoint masonry, and replace

ventilator curb and tank.

7/23-8/20 28 40,993 699,700 17.07

Install new stainless steel ridge and flashing.

Replace downspouts. Install new tapered

insulation on all roofs.

7/29-9/9 42 15,522 463,434 29.86

Install base layer and tapered insulation

over concrete, and clean and recoat metal

roof.

7/23-8/31 39 42,844 1,088,000 25.39

Seal limestone coping and flashing, repair

ornamental cornice, replace glazing in

skylight, and replace and paint fascia

boards.

8/1-9/3 33 8,366 646,432 77.27

Clean, prime, and repaint metal roof.

Replace glazing at skylight. Replace cupola

and clean drains and repair gutters.

8/1-9/9 39 30,425 1,150,000 37.80

Clean metal roof, prime and repaint, seal

skylight glazing joints, and replace existing

mezzanine covers with new membranes.

7/29-9/10 43 93,744 2,380,000 25.39

(continued)

Page 13 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

Schoola

Year

built

Roof

areasb Material used

17. Fletcher-Johnson ES 1980 10 Ethylene Propylene Diene

Monomer (EPDM, i.e.,

rubber roof).

18. Francis JHS 1927 14 2-ply modified bitumen.

19. Gage-Eckington ES 1977 15 2-ply modified bitumen and

metal.

20. Garfield ES 1868 15 2-ply modified bitumen,

slate, and metal.

21. Green ES 1965 6 2-ply modified bitumen.

22. Jefferson JHS 1940 13 2-ply modified bitumen,

slate, and metal.

23. Ketcham ES 1909 13 Slate and tin roof.

24. Lafayette ES 1931 24 2-ply modified bitumen,

slate, and metal.

25. Langdon ES 1930 8 2-ply modified bitumen and

slate.

26. Leckie ES 1970 1 2-ply modified bitumen.

27. Lee MD SES 1971 14 2-ply modified bitumen.

28. Ludlow-Taylor ES 1969 7 2-ply modified bitumen.

29. MacFarland JHS 1923 15 2-ply modified bitumen.

30. Maury ES 1890 8 2-ply modified bitumen,

slate, and metal.

31. Nalle ES 1959 5 2-ply modified bitumen.

32. Orr ES 1974 8 2-ply modified bitumen.

33. Park View ES 1916 10 2-ply modified bitumen,

metal, and slate.

Page 14 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

Roof-related workc

Period of

workd (1997) Days

Estimated

square feete

Amount of contract

& change orders as

of 2/4/98f

Estimated cost per

square foot

Repair ventilator hoods, masonry walls,

parapets, and concrete walkway. Repair

skylight and counter flashing. Install counter

strips. Reseal parapets. Improve drainage.

7/29-8/27 29 41,901 610,135 14.56

Repair masonry joints and coping. Replace

roof drains and storm drain piping on two

roofs.

8/1-9/10 40 53,030 577,255 10.89

Repair gutters. 8/1-9/8 38 22,818 687,740 30.14

Install new tapered insulation on 2 built-up

roofs. Remove and replace all slate, over

new felt, on 11 roofs.

7/29-9/7 40 23,267 670,000 28.80

Replace counter flashing and repair

concrete.

7/30-9/3 35 26,269 617,500 23.51

Repair cupola and base, clean drains,

repoint masonry, replace skylights, provide

splash blocks, and repair electrical and

mortar joints. Replace drains and reseal

coping, move satellite dish, and reseal

chimney.

7/23-8/26 34 19,099 547,250 28.65

Replace flat seam copper. 7/23-9/3 42 45,155 189,000 4.19

Replace gutters, downspouts, ridge, and

flashing. Clean drains; repair mortar and

coping joints; and replace skylights.

7/23-9/9 48 15,228 522,400 34.31

Repair gutters, flashing, and pitch pockets.

Seal coping, repoint masonry, clean drains,

reinstall cornice, and repaint two cupolas.

9/9-9/27 18 8,700 287,000 32.99

Repair damaged flashing. 9/11-9/14 3 8,800 112,600 12.80

Replace domed skylight. 7/23-8/31 39 34,178 909,000 26.60

Install new tapered insulation on 7 built-up

roofs.

7/29-8/30 32 30,331 525,851 17.34

Repoint masonry and replace broken brick.

Replace severely cracked parging on

parapet walls with new parging or metal

panels. Remove and recover skylights.

Repair flashing. Replace stone coping.

Clean drains.

7/23-9/10 49 11,647 750,675 64.45

Repair roof structure and masonry, and

repaint cornices.

7/23-8/31 39 17,670 413,000 23.37

No additional work performed. 7/23-8/27 35 33,122 281,708 8.51

Remove old built-up roof and install new roof

over tapered insulation. Install new drains.

7/23-9/8 47 39,724 488,300 12.29

Install 2 new metal roofs over old metal. 7/29-9/8 41 29,110 838,458 28.80

(continued)

Page 15 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

Schoola

Year

built

Roof

areasb Material used

34. Phelps SHS 1934 20 2-ply modified bitumen and

slate.

35. Randle-Highlands ES 1912 6 2-ply modified bitumen and

slate.

36. Roosevelt SHS 1932 24 2-ply modified bitumen,

copper, and slate.

37. Ross ES 1896 1 Slate tiles and metal.

38. Shaed ES 1971 3 2-ply modified bitumen.

39. Spingarn SHS 1941 14 2-ply modified bitumen and

slate.

40. Stuart-Hobson MS 1927 14 2-ply modified bitumen.

41. Truesdell ES 1908 9 Metal.

42. Tyler ES 1949 3 2-ply modified bitumen.

43. Washington MM CDC

SHS

1912 15 2-ply modified bitumen and

metal.

44. West ES 1978 1 Asphalt shingle.

45. Wilson SHS 1935 16 2-ply modified bitumen and

slate.

46. Young ES 1931 8 2-ply modified bitumen and

slate.

Total DCPS-managed

contracts (average days

and average cost per

square foot)

GSA-managed contracts

47. Cooke HD ES 1909 2 Fiberglass asphalt and

2-ply modified bitumen.

48. Houston ES 1961 3 2-ply modified bitumen.

49. Merritt ES 1976 11 4-ply modified bitumen.

50. Meyer ES 1962 3 2-ply modified bitumen.

Page 16 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

Roof-related workc

Period of

workd (1997) Days

Estimated

square feete

Amount of contract

& change orders as

of 2/4/98f

Estimated cost per

square foot

Install new tapered insulation on 18 built-up

roofs. Install new drains.

8/1-9/10 40 64,637 1,464,700 22.66

Repair or replace gutters and downspouts,

clean drains, and repoint masonry. Move

cellular equipment.

7/23-9/10 49 25,664 596,700 23.25

Replace damaged slate roof and replace

skylight glazing. Repair parapet, cupola,

and vents.

8/12-9/10 29 82,186 2,596,820 31.60

Replace existing gutters and coping. Install

copper snow guards on slate roof.

7/23-8/26 34 8,000 122,224 15.28

Install new tapered insulation. Remove and

reinstall metal coping.

7/29-9/9 42 18,139 395,000 21.78

Seal glazing, replace missing ridge flashing,

repoint chimney, and install new coping.

Repair expansion joints, and clean and

repaint metal steps. Repair gutters,

skylights, and flashing.

8/1-9/10 40 35,928 1,300,000 36.18

Repair flashing and coping. 7/23-8/20 28 41,031 663,800 16.18

Install new metal roofing over old. Install

new tapered insulation on 3 built-up roofs.

8/1-9/9 39 29,623 697,810 23.56

No additional work performed. 1/27-2/12 16 17,500 129,075 7.38

Wire brush and repaint metal roof, and

install stone ballast and metal scupper

guard.

7/23-8/20 28 24,041 411,000 17.10

No additional work performed. 5/27-6/20 24 21,000 96,850 4.61

Install stainless steel coping. Repoint

masonry wall. Install metal flashing around

cupola base.

7/19-9/7 50 25,189 450,366 17.88

Replace exterior cladding on cupola.

Replace aluminum coping and repair

coping joints. Lower and replace drains.

8/1-9/3 33 31,786 632,563 19.90

36 1,416,896 $30,669,443 $21.65

Adjust parapets and replace gravelstop,

gutter, downspouts, and flashing.

2/26-5/17 80 27,870 $329,636 $11.83

Replace gutters, flashing, parapets, and

downspouts.

2/26-6/18 112 36,255 512,480 14.14

Install new tapered insulation. Repair

substrate as needed.

8/4-9/10 37 57,000 641,800 11.26

Replace gutters, flashing, parapets, and

downspouts, and repaint metal roofing.

2/26-6/6 100 26,100 315,827 12.10

(continued)

Page 17 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

Schoola

Year

built

Roof

areasb Material used

51. River Terrace ES 1952 1 2-ply modified bitumen.

52. Shadd ES 1955 6 4-ply modified bitumen.

53. Sharpe Health SES 1959 6 4-ply modified bitumen.

54. Spingarn SHS Gymg 1941 1 4-ply modified bitumen.

55. Turner ES 1946 1 2-ply modified bitumen.

56. Tyler ESg 1949 3 4-ply modified bitumen.

Total GSA-managed

contracts (average days

and average cost per

square foot)

Average days, total

square feet, total cost,

and average cost per

square foot

Consulting, contract

administration and

construction management

fees

Total, including fees

Page 18 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

Roof-related workc

Period of

workd (1997) Days

Estimated

square feete

Amount of contract

& change orders as

of 2/4/98f

Estimated cost per

square foot

Replace gutters, flashing, parapets, and

downspouts.

2/26-5/23 86 39,809 467,571 11.75

Install new tapered insulation. Repair

substrate as needed.

7/14-8/26 43 31,000 312,950 10.10

Install new tapered insulation. Install new

flashing.

7/26-9/7 43 41,000 442,015 10.78

Replace all roofing materials, including

entire roof deck, which had been destroyed

by fire. Replace all skylights, blocking,

flashing, and downspouts.

6/17-7/25 38 12,000 329,200 27.43

Replace gutters, flashing, parapets, and

downspouts.

2/26-5/17 80 26,700 352,626 13.21

Install new tapered insulation. Repair

substrate as needed. Emergency

replacement of a section of wall.

7/10-8/31 52 17,500 343,687 19.64

67 315,234 $4,047,792 $12.84

42 1,732,130 $34,717,235 $20.04

2,176,054

$36,893,289

Page 19 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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.

aCDC - Career Development Center.

ES - Elementary School.

JHS - Junior High School.

MS - Middle School.

SES - Special Education School.

SHS - Senior High School.

bGenerally, 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.

cRoof-related work includes repairs and maintenance deemed necessary—in most cases,

long-deferred maintenance.

dThe 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.

eEstimates 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.

gThis 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).

Page 20 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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

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 DCPS-managed work was completed within extremely narrow time frames.

This tight schedule was caused by the lack of (1) technical capital project

Page 21 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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

Page 22 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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

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

Page 23 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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.

Deferred Maintenance and

Warranties

In recent years, it has been widely documented20 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,

19A 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.

20See footnotes 2 and 10 in this report.

Page 24 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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 repairs21 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.

21DCPS managed this project at Spingarn Senior High School.

22In 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.

23In 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.

Page 25 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

To the extent that such items retain water, they keep the roof surface

saturated, thus accelerating deterioration of the roof membrane and

substrate.

Other Factors 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

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

24Of this amount, about $1.6 million went to DMJM, about $300,000 to GSA, and about $300,000 to

Sverdrup Facilities, Inc.

25The 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.

Page 26 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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.

Planned Roof Repairs 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 million26 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

26This 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.

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

Page 27 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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 199729 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.

Comments and Our

Evaluation

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

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

29Dent Elementary was sold for $410,000.

Page 28 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

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

Page 29 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
B-278471 

concerning the roof repairs or whether current DCPS management could

have reasonably mitigated those effects.

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

Page 30 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Page 31 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Key Dates Related to

Fiscal Year 1997 Roof

Repairs at D.C. Public

Schools

34

Appendix II 

A Typical District of

Columbia School With

Multiple Roof Areas

38

Appendix III 

Comments From the

District of Columbia

Financial

Responsibility and

Management

Assistance Authority

40

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

District of Columbia

Public Schools

43

Appendix V 

Comments From the

General Services

Administration

54

Page 32 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Contents

Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to

This Report

55

Glossary 56

Tables Table 1: Funds Received in Fiscal Year 1997 for DCPS Capital

Projects

8

Table 2: Summary of Roof Work and Estimated Cost per Square

Foot, Fiscal Year 1997

12

Abbreviations

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

Page 33 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix I 

Key Dates Related to Fiscal Year 1997 Roof

Repairs at D.C. Public Schools

March 3, 1992 Parents United for the District of Columbia, an 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, 1994 The trial resulted in a D.C. Superior Court Order 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, 1995 The District of Columbia Public School Superintendent’s 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, 1996 Public Law 104-134 was enacted, requiring the General 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, 1996 A Memorandum of Understanding between the General 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, 1996 Public Law 104-194, the 1997 Appropriations Act for the District of

Columbia, was enacted, providing $9.2 million for school repairs in

a restricted line item.

September 30, 1996 Public Law 104-208 was enacted, providing Student Loan

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.

(continued)

Page 34 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix I 

Key Dates Related to Fiscal Year 1997 Roof

Repairs at D.C. Public Schools

October 3, 1996 The Authority received $11.5 million from fiscal year 1996 general

obligation bond proceeds to be used for D.C. public school

repairs and capital improvements.

November 15, 1996 The Authority restructured the District of Columbia Public School

by establishing a Board of Trustees and replacing the then

Superintendent of Schools with a new Chief Executive Officer.

November 19, 1996 A Memorandum of Understanding between the General 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, 1997 The District of Columbia Public School Chief Executive Officer

hired a Chief Operating Officer to manage and implement the

school facilities improvement program.

February 18, 1997 The General Services Administration provided the District of

Columbia Public Schools with a facilities revitalization plan as

agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding dated July 25,

1996.

February 26, 1997 The General Services Administration issued Notices to Proceed to

roofing contractors for certain D.C. public schools.

February 28, 1997 The District of Columbia Public Schools submitted a 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, 1997 The Authority received $18.25 million from the federal

government’s sale of Connie Lee to be used for D.C. public school

repairs and facility construction.

April 4, 1997 The District of Columbia Public Schools submitted a request to

D.C. Office of Budget and Planning for $28.5 million for capital

improvements.

April 7, 1997 District of Columbia Public School Chief Operating Officer hired a

Chief of Capital Projects to direct the program management,

program planning and control, and design review team managers.

April 14, 1997 The Authority requested $36.85 million in supplemental funds from

Congress for emergency public school facility improvements.

Congress declined to provide any additional funds.

April 25, 1997 The District of Columbia Public Schools submitted a 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.

(continued)

Page 35 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix I 

Key Dates Related to Fiscal Year 1997 Roof

Repairs at D.C. Public Schools

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, 1997 District of Columbia Public Schools recessed for summer 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, 1997 The District of Columbia Public School Chief Operating 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, 1997 A District of Columbia Superior Court judge reiterated 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, 1997 The District of Columbia Public Schools issued an 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, 1997 The District of Columbia Public Schools submitted a request to

D.C. Office of Budget and Planning for an additional $20 million for

capital improvements.

July 17, 1997 The District of Columbia Public Schools submitted a 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, 1997 The District of Columbia Public Schools issued first Notices to

Proceed to roofing contractors.

(continued)

Page 36 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix I 

Key Dates Related to Fiscal Year 1997 Roof

Repairs at D.C. Public Schools

August 18, 1997 The District of Columbia Public Schools submitted a 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, 1997 The Authority received $36.8 million of Sallie Mae proceeds (from

stock warrants) to be used for school repairs and capital

improvements.

September 22, 1997 District of Columbia public schools opened, commencing the

1997-1998 school year.

October 6, 1997 The Authority received $5 million of Sallie Mae proceeds (from the

sale of naming rights) to be used for school repairs and capital

improvements.

November 3, 1997 A settlement was reached among Parents United, the 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.

Page 37 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix II 

A Typical District of Columbia School With

Multiple Roof Areas

Page 38 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix II 

A Typical District of Columbia School With

Multiple Roof Areas

Source: DCPS Capital Program Division.

Page 39 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix III 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Financial Responsibility and Management

Assistance Authority

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

Page 40 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix III 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Financial Responsibility and Management

Assistance Authority

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

Page 41 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix III 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Financial Responsibility and Management

Assistance Authority

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.

Page 42 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix IV 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Public Schools

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 43 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix IV 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Public Schools

See comment 1.

See comment 1.

See comment 1.

Page 44 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix IV 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Public Schools

Page 45 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix IV 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Public Schools

Page 46 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix IV 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Public Schools

Page 47 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix IV 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Public Schools

See comment 2.

Page 48 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix IV 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Public Schools

Page 49 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix IV 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Public Schools

See comment 3.

See comment 2.

Page 50 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix IV 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Public Schools

Page 51 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix IV 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Public Schools

Page 52 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix IV 

Comments From the District of Columbia

Public Schools

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.

Page 53 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix V 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

Page 54 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to This Report

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

Page 55 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Glossary

Asphalt A petroleum compound, dark brown or black in color, used in the

manufacture of roofing products.

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

Bitumen Asphalt or coal-tar pitch.

Blocking 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 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 A continuous strip of flashing forming a triangle with a structural deck and

a wall or other vertical surface.

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

Colonnade A number of columns supporting one side of a roof.

Coping 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 Metal strips used to prevent moisture from entering the top edge of roof

flashing, as on a chimney or wall.

Cupola A terminal structure, square or round, rising above a main roof. While

generally ornamental, a cupola can provide for ventilation.

Cornice The molded and projecting horizontal member that crowns a wall.

Page 56 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Glossary

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

Design The architectural concept of a building as represented by plans,

elevations, renderings, and other drawings.

Design-Build 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 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 An outlet or other device used to collect and direct the flow of runoff

water from a roof area.

EPDM Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (rubber roof).

Estimate (Scope) 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 A structural separation between two building elements that allows free

movement without damage to the roofing or waterproofing system.

Fascia 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 Strips of copper, aluminum, galvanized sheet metal, or similar materials

used along walls, dormers, valleys, and chimneys to prevent moisture

seepage.

Page 57 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Glossary

Flood Test The procedure in which a controlled amount of water is temporarily

retained over a horizontal surface to determine the effectiveness of the

waterproofing.

Glazing Cutting and fitting panes of glass into frames.

Gravel Stop 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 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 Materials designed to reduce the flow of heat either into or from a

building.

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

ceramic blocks.

Modified Bitumen A roofing bitumen which generally has been rubberized or plasticized to

provide greater elasticity, flexibility, and improved working

characteristics.

Parapet A low, retaining wall at the edge of a roof. Usually an upward extension of

a building’s exterior curtain wall.

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

Pitch The incline, or slope, of a roof.

Page 58 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Glossary

Pitch Pocket 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 A single layer of organic or inorganic roofing material in a roof membrane

or roof system.

Replacement The practice of removing an existing roof system down to the roof deck

and replacing it with a new roofing system.

Repointing The process of removing deteriorated mortar from an existing masonry

joint and troweling new mortar or other filler into the joint.

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

system.

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

roof.

Roofing System An assembly of interacting roof structures and components designed to be

weatherproof, and normally to insulate the building’s top surface.

Saddle 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 An opening cut through the wall of a building through which water can

drain from a floor or roof.

Shingle Roof covering made from asphalt, fiberglass, wood, aluminum, tile, slate,

or other water-shedding material.

Page 59 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Glossary

Skylight 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 A small masonry block laid on the ground below a downspout to carry

roof drainage away from a building.

Substrate See Deck.

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

Traditional Method 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 Where two roofs coming from different horizontal directions meet and

form an internal angle.

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

building.

(916240) Page 60 GAO/AIMD-98-82 District of Columbia Public Schools
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100