INSPECTION OVERSIGHT STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to identify deficiencies, if any, in the oversight of the inspection of schools as required by Education Code Section 17311. This review will identify deficiencies that may ultimately lead to risk exposure for the DSA. Based upon the findings, recommendations for changes to the oversight program are included. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The scope of this study focuses on the DSA's obligation to oversee the construction inspection of schools. Primary statutory requirements are described in Education Code Sections 17280-17317 and 81130-81149, as well as Government Code Sections 14950-14964. Certain aspects of the plan review process, while outside the primary scope, are discussed because of their indirect effect on the DSA's construction oversight program. The methodology used was to review and compare the DSA statutory requirements for the school construction oversight program to the current procedures; survey all Regional Managers, Supervisors and District Structural Engineers as to their opinions of the effectiveness of the inspection oversight; and interview the Inspector-of-Record at construction sites. Particular attention was paid to non-structural aspects of construction, methods of estimating workload and determining staffing needs, frequency of site visits, the use of current technology in compiling information, and recommendations for improvements. BACKGROUND Statutory requirements for construction inspection oversight of school buildings are found in the Education Code subsequently defined as the Field Act. The Field Act consists of Article 3 (17280-17316), Article 6 (17365-17374) of Chapter 3 of Part 10.5 and Article 7 (81130-81149) of Chapter 1 of Part 49 of the Education Code. Regulations for school construction promulgated by the California Building Standards Commission are contained in Title 24, Part 1 Sections 4-301 through 4-355 and 5-101 through 5-301.6. Inspection Oversight Study Page 2 The statutes provide the authority for the DSA to supervise the design and construction of public schools (Kindergarten through 12th grade and Community College) to ensure that plans and specifications comply with the regulation and that the work of construction has been performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The stated purpose of the statutes is the "protection of life and property" per Education Code 17280. The DSA currently concentrates its efforts on structural, fire/life safety, and access compliance. The DSA employs structural engineers to perform the plan review and construction inspection oversight functions. The mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) aspects of plans and specifications are not reviewed or provided with adequate oversight of the inspection. ANALYSIS/FINDINGS INSPECTION PROCESS As mentioned above, the plan review is secondary to this study; however, without including an analysis of the plan review program, the study would yield an incomplete analysis. Without approved plans and specifications, the inspector has no reliable reference material to perform the inspection and the DSA has no criteria to evaluate the inspection. Both programs have interrelated threads and are discussed to ensure a thorough analysis is presented. The primary statutes that authorize and govern the DSA's involvement in the oversight of public school construction are the "Field Act", Education Code Part 10.5, Article 3; Part 49, Article 7; and the Government Code ?14963. Each code is summarized and analyzed below: Education Code ?17280 Statute Summary: ?17280 obligates The DGS to supervise the design and construction of any school building, reconstruction, alteration or addition of any school building to ensure plans and specifications comply with appropriate regulations and the building standards published in Title 24, and to ensure that the work of construction has been performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications for the protection of life and property. Analysis: ?17280 is the opening statement of the Field Act requiring the State Architect's review of the plans and specifications and the supervision of the school construction. The DSA interprets supervision of the construction to mean oversight of the 'inspectors who perform the continuous inspection'. ?17280 analysis will focus on Access, MEP and Structural oversight requirements after some general details are given. Fire/Life Safety is governed by the requirements stated in Government Code ?14963. Inspection Oversight Study Page 3 General Details The DSA focuses its plan review and construction oversight efforts on structural, fire/life safety and access compliance, while mechanical, electrical and plumbing are not currently being reviewed for compliance with Title 24 as required by statute. Errors or deviations from plans relating to MEP code requirements may or may not be noticed by the plan reviewer or field engineers during site visits because of the structural focus. The DSA employs 24 field engineers throughout the four regional offices; two of these positions are filled with retired annuitants that are only allowed to work 960 hours annually (0.5 personnel years), and there are 10 vacancies. The DSE performs various administrative and oversight duties applying his/her expertise to the structural integrity of the construction. General knowledge of access, fire/life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing varies greatly among the DSEs and is applied to the oversight program sporadically. The statute's primary objective is to provide for the safety of students and teachers occupying school buildings and assure school buildings are accessible. To accomplish this objective The DGS is mandated to ensure design standards in all disciplines are met and the construction follows the plans and specifications as approved. Below are the primary oversight disciplines involved with this authority: Access Oversight Statute Summary-- ?17280 obligates the DSA to oversee access compliance in design and construction during plan review and inspection. Title 24 incorporates the minimum requirements from the American with Disability Act, ?202, 226 and ?227 and the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards with California's modifications. Analysis -- The DSA manages its access obligation through the plan review process. The project inspector is responsible to the DSA to ensure the plans are followed. While not part of structural oversight, access deviations are generally noticeable. The DSEs will notify the project inspectors when a violation is evident and noticed. Compliance Findings -- The DSA concentrates its construction oversight on the structural aspects of construction. Accessibility is generally visible; therefore, during site visits deviations from access codes are identified when noticed. DSEs are not experts in access codes, nor are they proficient in or responsible to appraise accessibility during construction. The experts who perform the plan review do not visit sites to oversee construction. This gap in oversight expertise may present some risk to the DSA. Inspection Oversight Study Page 4 Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Oversight Statute Summary -- ?17280 obligates the DSA to oversee MEP in design and construction during plan review and inspection. Title 24 incorporates the minimum requirements for protection of life and property. Analysis -- Proper and complete MEP plan review and construction oversight is not being provided. The project inspector is responsible to the DSA to ensure the plans are followed. If the construction documents have not been properly reviewed, it is unreasonable to expect the project inspector to find all deficiencies during the construction process. Compliance Findings -- The DSA does not meet the implied responsibility of protection of life & property due to its limited expertise with MEP. Since the DSA concentrates its construction oversight on structural integrity, MEP is only reviewed in relation to the structural and FLS aspects of the building. The DSA relies heavily on project designers and project inspectors to verify that the MEP aspects of construction meet code requirements. DSEs do notify project inspectors when they notice MEP deviations; however, the DSE's lack of nonstructural expertise poses a risk to the DSA because a general observance of MEP compliance will not ensure protection of life and property. Failure to provide expert oversight in all areas may lead to serious problems. Structural Oversight Statute Summary-- ?17280 obligates the DSA to supervise the construction of any school building to ensure the protection of life and property. A structural emphasis is present throughout the statutes. Analysis--The DSA's interpretation of this code makes the DSE responsible to observe and validate the work of the project inspector. Four issues stand out when analyzing the structural oversight component: 1. There currently is an insufficient number of DSEs to perform their oversight duties in a proficient manner. The DSEs periodically visit the sites to oversee the inspection effort during construction. During the average site visit, the DSE is tasked with observing the construction, observing how the project inspector conducts his/her responsibilities and observing if the inspector's job file is updated in an effort to evaluate each inspector's skills and knowledge of codes, plans/specifications and construction. Many factors affect the frequency of site visits and the amount of time spent at the site. Travel time to the sites varies greatly dependent upon distance and traffic. The DSEs should be spending a minimum of one hour and, depending upon the size and complexity of the project, up to a full day on the site during the construction process. These visits should occur at least once a month; with more frequent visits during critical times of construction. Inspection Oversight Study Page 5 2. The oversight is performed with limited written procedures for observing and evaluating the project inspector. DSEs are not given explicit procedures on what to monitor when visiting a site. 3. Remedy/recourse is limited for DSE to manage substandard inspector performance. 4. Minimum standards and procedures for inspection should be provided to the inspectors. Some inspectors have stated concerns that there is no minimum direction being given for performing their duties. This leaves it up to the school district's and designer's discretion to provide direction on performing inspections. This results in decisions being made based on schedule and budget rather than life/safety concerns. The inspectors are subject to the discretionary directions provided to them by their clients. If the inspectors have a minimum procedure to inspect by, they will not be required to lower the standards of inspection. The statute does not provide clear direction as to what supervise plans and construction means, therefore risk is inherent in allowing substandard performing inspectors to continue to work on projects and/or approve them on future projects. Compliance Findings -- While the DSA is partially compliant with the statute in that it oversees the work of school construction; the deficiencies are further examined below: 1. The workload, coupled with vacancies, limits the DSE's ability to fully satisfy the critical element of protecting life and property. The DSE's workload surpasses what can be accomplished effectively. This presents a risk to the DSA due to a lack of attention to all responsibilities. The current DSE workload is arduous with the responsibility to supervise/oversee an average of 45 project inspectors and an average of 124 projects. Recruitment efforts are taking place; however, with full staffing the average number of inspectors to DSE is 32 and the average number of projects to DSE is still very high (88). With one third of the positions vacant (10), relocatable buildings are receiving minimal oversight at best (the DSA oversees the inspection of relocatable buildings per Education Code 17298). Change orders frequently receive review and approval after the work is done and site visits are inadequate in number and quality to effectively observe and evaluate the project inspector and construction. Administrative duties may also not be completed in a timely manner. 2. The lack of multi-disciplinary training of DSEs leads to a lack of emphasis in construction oversight on non-structural aspects of construction. This lack Inspection Oversight Study Page 6 of emphasis affects the focus of the project inspector's activities. There are no detailed expectations or directives regarding the non-structural aspects of the DSE oversight and poses a risk to the DSA. While the DSE duty statement provides percentage of time allocation to groups of tasks, no specific procedures or checklists are required for the DSE on each project. The DSEs are not tasked to observe access, energy, fire/life safety, mechanical, electrical and/or plumbing compliance. Their primary focus is structural. If the DSE happens to notice a deviation or problem with the other disciplines during a site visit, they mention it to the project inspector. Some DSEs create their own list/criteria to guide their oversight of the project inspector and the construction. The lack of detailed procedures for evaluating project inspectors presents a risk to the DSA. There are at least three gaps in the inspector evaluation process: a. There are no policies detailing what the DSE should be observing in relation to access, energy, fire/life safety, mechanical, electrical and/or plumbing compliance as it relates to criteria for evaluation. There are no procedures for the DSE to follow while evaluating the inspector's performance, knowledge or skill regarding all aspects of the construction. b. The DSA-180-5.1 form used to evaluate the project inspector is very general and is not effective in providing a comprehensive evaluation. The form is focused on the inspector's administration of paperwork. Additionally, the evaluation form is completed at the conclusion of the project. The evaluation does not allow for due process providing progressive resolution nor consequence when performance problems arise during the course of construction. c. The lack of remedy and/or recourse that DSEs have when responsible with the oversight of project inspectors may present a risk to the DSA when dealing with inspectors whose performance is substandard. Currently, ineffective inspectors could continue to work on the projects for which they were hired and may be allowed to work on future projects. DSEs are responsible to oversee and evaluate project inspectors; to effectively supervise inspectors, the DSEs need written procedures that provide progressive discipline procedures to ensure due process and proper direction is given to inspectors. The DSA does not have the regulatory authority to remove inspectors who are performing poorly from a project or the certified inspector list. d. While the DSA is compliant in its structural oversight, there are several areas that present risk to the DSA. At a minimum, the analysis indicates critical areas that require strengthening. Fire/Life Safety, Access and MEP inspections are not being evaluated in any formal manner. Compliance Findings: The DSA is in compliance with ?17280 with regard to structural oversight; however, the above outlined deficiencies reveal non-compliance in providing Inspection Oversight Study Page 7 oversight of the non-structural aspects of construction. Further, the deficiencies noted in the structural oversight that may also pose a risk: the arduous workload; the lack of written procedures for the oversight; the lack of detailed procedures and criteria for evaluating and approving the inspectors; and lack of written procedures for the project inspectors. A thorough process analysis, followed by development of written procedures, should be performed on the above elements of the inspection oversight program to enhance the DSA's compliance and reduce its risk by implementing critical process improvements. Government Codes ?14963 Statute Summary: The duties and functions formerly conducted by the State Fire Marshal that relate to school plan review, construction and inspection are hereby transferred to the DSA. Analysis: The code obligates the DSA to perform the tasks that the State Fire Marshal was previously charged with relating to schools. These tasks include plan review and performance of FLS inspections during construction. It is one of the DSA's responsibilities to ensure that schools are designed and constructed in compliance with FLS codes. Plans and specifications are examined by FLS experts during plan review; however, FLS inspections are not being performed during the DSE site visits. If FLS deviations are noticed, they are brought to the project inspector's attention. It is the project inspector's responsibility to ensure the plans are followed relating to fire aspects of construction. Previous to GC ?14963, the Fire/Life Safety inspections were performed by Deputy State Fire Marshals. Fire/Life Safety plan review experts will inspect work at construction sites when requested but site visits and inspections are not a normal part of their duties. Compliance Findings: The DSA focuses its oversight on the structural aspects of construction. Deviations from Fire/Life Safety codes are pointed out when noticed by DSEs, who are not experts in FLS codes, nor are they being held responsible to check for FLS during construction. The experts who perform the FLS plan review do not routinely visit sites to ensure the work is code compliant during the construction. The DSA is in compliance with the statute during plan review; however, the DSA does not send experts to inspect/observe FLS work to ensure that the construction is consistent with the documents and prevailing codes. This deficiency in the process creates risk for the DSA. Education Code ?17311(a) Statute Summary: This statute has several important elements that need to be reviewed individually in order to determine compliance: o The DGS shall make such inspection of the school buildings and of the work of construction as in its judgment is necessary or proper for the enforcement of this article and the protection of the safety of the pupils, teachers and the public. Inspection Oversight Study Page 8 o The school district shall provide for and require competent, adequate and continuous inspection by an inspector satisfactory to the architect/structural engineer in charge of the project and the DGS. o The inspector shall act under the direction of the governing board and architect or structural engineer as the board may direct and be responsible to the governing board for employment. o The inspector shall be responsible to the DGS for the enforcement of the approved plans and specifications. Analysis: The first bulleted element establishes the DGS' authority to determine (in its judgment) what processes are necessary or proper to enforce this statute and ensure that the inspection of the school construction work protects the safety of the pupils, teachers and the public. The DSA oversees the inspectors to ensure proper enforcement. The second bulleted element requires the school district to provide and require competent, adequate and continuous inspection by an inspector satisfactory to the architect/structural engineer in charge of the project and the DGS. The DGS has developed a process conforming to this requirement. Project inspectors are tested in all aspects of construction including mechanical and electrical. In reviewing the examination, the testing was found to be inadequate to properly evaluate the inspectors' knowledge in any area other than the structural discipline. Since the DSE expertise is in structural engineering with only general knowledge of architectural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing, a broader base of Subject Matter Experts should be used to develop a more comprehensive examination. The third bulleted element requires the inspector to do as the board directs and be employed by the board. Who employs the inspector is very important because that relationship could present a conflict of interest. The entity employing or contracting with the inspector may have the opportunity to influence his/her duties. This is especially true where construction managers or the designers are compelled by schedule and budget to overlook design errors and inadequate construction in order to complete a project. While a conflict of interest is difficult to prove, it does occur; posing a risk to the DSA. There are cases where the district has required the inspector to communicate only with the designer during construction. This situation does not allow the inspector to remain autonomous from the affected parties when a design error occurs and may lead to non-compliant work being accepted. Another conflict occurs when the school district hires, without conditional provisions, a project inspector before the DSA approves the inspector for the project. The DSA is usually forced into accepting the inspector, posing a risk for the DSA. The fourth bulleted element indicates that the inspector shall be responsible to the DGS for enforcement of the plans and specifications; again giving the DSA the authority to supervise the inspector. If project inspectors are responsible to the DGS Inspection Oversight Study Page 9 for the enforcement of the codes, then the DGS should supervise that enforcement. Written guidelines are required to effectively define what the DSE responsibilities are; what the project inspector's responsibilities are; and what should be done when the project inspector is not meeting his/her responsibilities. The lack of procedures for progressive discipline of project inspectors with substandard performance poses a risk to the DSA. Compliance Findings: While the DSA is in material compliance of this statute, it is difficult to determine with 100 percent certainty whether they are in complete, technical compliance. The DSA has interpreted the words "The school district shall...provide for" to mean that the inspector may not be employed by any other party. Risk may be inherent with the conflict of interest that naturally develops with a hiring entity that is contracted to complete a project on time and under budget also hiring the inspector. The statute states that the DGS under the police power of the state shall supervise the design and construction of any school building; hence the authority to provide progressive discipline with consequences for the inspector is inherent. Addressing this deficiency may reduce the risk by allowing for more control of the inspection and consequently yield better quality work. Risk also arises when the school district contracts with a project inspector without conditional provisions pending DSA approval. Education Code ?17311(b) Education Code ?17311(b) pertains to training, but it is linked to the inspection process through ?17311(a) bullet two requiring competent adequate continuous inspection. In order for the DSA to ensure competence, minimum standards for certification and reevaluation were established. Statute Summary: This statute has several important elements that need to be reviewed individually to determine compliance: In order to ensure the competency and adequacy of the inspectors, the DGS shall: o Revise exam used to determine inspector competency (inspection techniques, required documents, construction, plan reading, and knowledge of statutes and regulations that apply to school construction) every 36 to 48 months. o Require the evaluation of the competency of those who provide inspections. After the initial evaluation, a reevaluation shall occur between 36 and 48 months. o Evaluation or reevaluation shall include the passage of the examination used to determine competence. o Provide training on an ongoing basis to all who inspect. The training is designed to ensure that all individuals who provide continuous inspections of school building construction are sufficiently knowledgeable of the rules, regulations, and standards Inspection Oversight Study Page 10 that apply under this article. Analysis: The first bulleted element mandates the DSA to revise the exam used to determine inspector competency (inspection techniques, required documents, construction, plan reading, and knowledge of statutes and regulations that apply to school construction) every 36 to 48 months. A revision has not been done in the last 48 months; however the DSA is looking into contracting to revise and proctor the certification and recertification exam. The second bulleted element requires the evaluation of the competency of those who provide inspections, and after the initial evaluation, a re-evaluation shall occur between 36 and 48 months. The DSA has established minimum qualifications to take the certification exam. The inspector is also allowed to take the seminar prior to the exam; however, the seminar is not designed to assist inspectors to pass the certification exam. All of these efforts will assist in the evaluation of the inspector's competency. The third bulleted element of this code requires the passage of the examination used to determine competence. The DSA has developed an extensive six-hour certification exam that tests the inspector's competency on inspection techniques, required documentation, construction work, plan reading, statutes and regulations that apply to school construction. Inspectors have to pass all sections of the exam with a minimum score of 60 percent. However, the recertification exam is a simple 27 question exam. This exam is not comprehensive, nor does it determine the competency of the inspector ensuring sufficient knowledge of the rules, regulations and standards of school construction. Again, the supposition is that if the inspector passed the certification exam he/she has sufficient knowledge. The fourth bulleted element directs the DSA to provide training on an ongoing basis to all who inspect. The training is to be designed to make sure all individuals who provide continuous inspections of school building construction are sufficiently updated and knowledgeable of the rules, regulations, and standards that apply. Below are some analysis and/or deductions of the seminar offered by the DSA: o The DSA provides a two day seminar. Day one discusses administrative duties and structural codes. Day two discusses Access, FLS and MEP codes. The MEP section of the training is given by a RESD employee when available, but this topic is not consistently covered due to RESD staffing issues. Energy compliance is not covered in the seminar. o The information covered in the two day seminar may not be as comprehensive as it should be given the amount of time allocated to cover all of the topics. o The assumption is that the inspector already has sufficient knowledge if he/she has met the minimum requirements and has passed the certification test, so the seminar is designed to update and/or refresh inspectors on recent code and policy Inspection Oversight Study Page 11 changes. However, the statute clearly states the training shall be designed to ensure that all individuals who provide continuous inspection are sufficiently knowledgeable of the rules, regulations and standards. A two day seminar providing refresher information has serious limitations in ensuring sufficient knowledge. The DSA is minimally complying with the statute. Compliance Findings: The DSA is not compliant with bullet number one and is questionably compliant of bullet number three. There may be an issue with bullet number two due to the fact that the reevaluation exam is a simple test rather than the full certification exam described in the statute. Bullet number one mandates that the exam be revised but the exam has not been revised yet. The DSA is not in compliance with this aspect of the statute; though this issue is being addressed as mentioned. Bullet number four is another element of potential noncompliance is the design of the seminar the DSA offers. The DSA should examine and determine what sufficient knowledge really means. Interviews of Inspector of Records in the field have indicated their frustration with the lack of adequate training. The next step is to scrutinize and appraise the current course then explore training curriculum options and enhance the program of study to bring it up to the level the statute intended. The recertification exam may be insufficient to determine the inspector's competence and/or ensuring sufficient knowledge of the rules, regulations and standards. The 27 question re-evaluation exam is given after inspector has taken Seminar Part 1 & 2 and the recertification class, which is essentially giving the test and then going over the test after it was taken. The recertification exam is not equivalent to the original exam for certification. Although, it could be argued that most professions that require certification or licensing do not have to be re-examined; their renewal generally consists of continuing education requirements and a fee. The DSA would be prudent to determine the extent it wishes to pursue the re-evaluation process. The key gaps existing in ?17311(b) are the exam has not been revised within 3 to 4 years; the design of the seminar may be inferior to the intent of the statute with a curriculum that is questionable to determine sufficient knowledge; and the recertification exam may not re-evaluate inspectors at an appropriate level to determine competency with sufficient knowledge. All three of these elements may present significant risk to the DSA. Education Code ?17315 Statute Summary: When a school constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the DGS is completed and all documents are turned into the Inspection Oversight Study Page 12 DGS a certificate shall be issued. There is nothing that shall prevent beneficial occupancy by the school district prior to issuance of certification. Analysis: The DSA has complied with the intent of the code, but the language is very limiting in that the code states "nothing shall prevent beneficial occupancy." Projects are not generally closed in a timely manner, reports required to be turned in frequently arrive long after the building is in use or do not arrive at all, so projects are consistently closed without all the appropriate documentation. Because all reports are not turned in to the DSA via the DSE, the DSE is unable to validate that the building was constructed in accordance with the plans and specification or that all deviations were corrected. Buildings are almost always occupied prior to certification from the DSA. Enforcement of the code is difficult since the language prevents control and provides no punitive authority. Compliance Findings: There is a serious gap in the DSA's ability to comply with the intent of this statute due to the language in the code. Validation that the building construction was in accordance with plans and specifications is difficult without all of the documentation that is often not submitted (besides the exception that 17315b allows). The DSA is currently in a back log situation for the close out process. Buildings that fall into this category should not be allowed to be occupied; but, again the statute does not give authority to prevent occupancy. The statute appears to be silent on the issuing of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Office of Legal Services should be consulted. PLAN REVIEW PROCESS Education Code ?17297, ?17300, ?17304, ?17307 and Government Code ?4450 Statute Summary: These four codes are relevant to the plan review process and are interrelated. These codes fund the DSA and provide for the entire program including construction oversight. Education Codes ?17297 authorizes and obligates the DSA to provide written approval of the plans regarding the safety of design and construction before any contract for any construction or alteration of any school building is issued. Statute 17307 is almost identical in language, authority and intent. ?17300 requires that the application approval package shall be accompanied by a filing fee and defines the fee schedule. The authorized fee schedule allows the DSA to charge 0.7 percent for the first one million dollars of the estimated cost and not more than 0.6 percent for all costs in excess of one million dollars of estimated cost. There is a minimum fee of $250, and if the actual cost exceeds estimated cost by more than 5 percent, a further fee shall be paid at no more than 0.6 percent. Additionally this code requires that first payment will be 70 percent of the estimated cost and the remaining 30 percent will be sent to the DSA no more than five working days after the acceptance Inspection Oversight Study Page 13 of the bid for construction. ?17304 states that upon approving the plans submitted by an applicant, the DGS shall cause a final record set of the plans to be printed. The department may contract with one or more private entities to perform that printing at one or more of the regional offices. The costs for this printing shall be borne by the applicant. ?17307 states that no contract for the construction or alteration of any school building, made or executed by the board is valid, and no public money shall be paid for any work done under a contract or for any work unless the plans, specification, and estimates comply in every particular with the provision of this article and the requirements prescribed by the DGS and unless the approval thereof in writing has first been had and obtained from the DGS. Government Code ?4454 states that where state funds are used for any building and/or the construction of elementary schools, secondary schools or community college buildings, no contracts shall be award until written approval stating the plans and specifications comply with the intent of the code. ?4450 mandates all state buildings shall be accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. Accessibility compliance is accomplished through plan review. The application shall be accompanied by a filing fee in amounts as determined by the DGS. The amount the DSA has determined to be appropriate is 0.2 percent of the first $500,000 of the estimated project cost plus 0.1 percent of the project cost greater than $500,000. The minimum fee shall be $200. Analysis: All public school construction projects, with few statutory exceptions, are processed through the DSA where they are reviewed by Architects and Engineers who approve or reject the plans and specifications. The application for approval is accompanied by three sets of plans, specifications, and structural design computations with estimates of cost and payment for 70 percent of the estimated cost of the project. Additionally, the DSA receives fees for the plan review for access compliance on all applications submitted. Changes are written in colored pencil on the plans, which are returned to the school district's designer for correction. The corrections are made and a new set of plans and specifications is printed for back-check. Once it is verified that the plans comply with Title 24, the plan checker approves the plans by initialing and dating the pre-printed "approval stamp" or by stamping, initialing and dating each sheet of the plans. The DSA allows the school district's architect to take the approved plans and make the final record set. Compliance Findings: With the exception of ?17304, the DSA follows these sections of the Education Code to the degree that the department has control. The DSA complies with ?17297 and ?17300 completely. It becomes more difficult to comply with codes Inspection Oversight Study Page 14 ?17304 and ?17307. While ?17304 obligates the DGS to cause a final record set of the plans to be printed; this is not being done. Currently, the DSA allows the designer to leave the premises with the approved documents prior to copies being reproduced by the DSA. The DSA accepts a serious risk allowing the designer to take the plans and make a record set. This sometimes takes months and the DSA has no guarantee that the plans returned for the record set are exactly as approved. While the likelihood of errors occurring is small, the DSA is not meeting its obligation by not directly reproducing the final record set or contracting to have the record set reproduced as the statute mandates. Allowing the representative to take the plans leaves the DSA noncompliant with the statute and open to risk. The DSA is working on a plan to scan all documents prior to returning them to the designer. If the DSA becomes aware that a project has begun prior to the DSA approval (Education Code ?17307), the DSE may call or send a letter advising the School Board that they are violating the requirements of the Education Code. While the DSA has the right to stop work (see 17307.5); it is limited to work that would result in the "compromise of structural integrity of the building". This makes the statute difficult to enforce. The DSA has no punitive recourse to control and/or minimize construction performed prior to the DSA approval; thus leaving the DSA open to potential risk. CONCLUSION Some of the weakness found lie in the language of the statute, such as vague obligation, language open for interpretation or language that is too specific and limiting. The DSA appears to be in compliance with most statutes. However, there are weaknesses in the processes that need to be improved upon in order to reduce potential risk. DSA management should assign clear responsibility and provide procedures that ensure DSA compliance in the following areas: o Education Code 17280 and ?17311(a) mandates plan review and supervision of construction. The DSA does not currently provide for plan review of all disciplines. The field review of the construction inspectors does not provide oversight of all aspects of the project construction. Many of the structural engineers responsible for oversight do not believe that anything other than structural review is their responsibility. Further, the number of PYs allocated for field positions does not appear to be based on an accurate estimate if the workload. In the past, filling the empty positions has been problematic. Filling the vacancies may not be enough to bring the DSE workload to a manageable level that ensures enough time spent observing and evaluating inspectors, projects and change orders. The engineer's time may be better spent in the field focusing on the structural aspects of the construction. Different staff classifications could be assigned to perform the oversight of other aspects of construction including MEP and access compliance. Fire Life Safety Officers Inspection Oversight Study Page 15 should be used to perform the fire and panic safety inspections required by Government Code ?14963. Office support staff should be utilized to perform other duties such as: data entry for change orders; data entry for close out information; data entry for reports; review of nonstructural reports; review of nonstructural change orders. To oversee inspectors at an appropriate level of expertise the field staff need training on access, energy, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire/life safety or other appropriate classifications can be used to perform these duties. Additionally, field staff need clear precise written instruction on what they are responsible to observe (access, energy, fire/life safety and MEP aspects), and how they should evaluate the inspector (providing more control and due process for inspectors whose performance is substandard). A final concern is the school district hiring project inspectors prior to the DSA approval and without conditional provisions. The 1999 Field Manual developed by DSA should be reviewed, updated and formally used statewide providing uniformity and reducing risk to the DSA. o Education Code ?17304 requires the DSA to have direct responsibility for printing the final record set. The DSA currently does not print or contract to print the final record set. A procedure for scanning the documents does exist and all documents should be scanned prior to release to the project designer. Education Code ?17307 requires that construction will not begin prior to the DSA approval of plans. Explicit procedures that provide consequences when the construction begins prior to approval needs to be put in place. Education Code ?17307.5 is the stop work order authority currently in place. Unless the work is "...not being performed in accordance with existing law and would compromise the structural integrity of the building...", then a stop work notice cannot be issued. Every local jurisdiction within the State has authority to stop work if it is not in compliance with the CBC. The DGS should have the same authority. The statute should be modified to reflect additional authority. Education Code 17311(b) (1) requires that the certification exam have to be revised not later than 48 months and not earlier than 36 months after the last revision. The have not been significant revisions made in approximately 7 years. A new exam is currently being developed and it is expected to start being utilized soon. Education Code ?17311(b) (2) requires that training be provided on an ongoing basis to all individuals who provide the inspections of school construction. Design of the training shall ensure that all inspectors shall have sufficient knowledge of the rules, regulations and standards that apply to school construction. The DSA Academy is currently being developed to provide that level of training. Education Code ?17311(b) (3) requires evaluation of the competency of those o o o o o Inspection Oversight Study Page 16 who provide inspections for schools. It further requires a reevaluation no later than 48 months or earlier than 36 months after the last evaluation or reevaluation. The reevaluation consists of the required training stated above and "...shall include passage of the examination used to determine competence..." This would seem to indicate that the inspector would be required to take the same exam required for the original certification. Currently, this is not being done. o Education Code ?17315 mandates The DSA provide certification for completion. The DSA is not in complete compliance with this section. When all reports are turned in as required a certificate is issued. However, in many cases the reports are not turned in and the certification is not issued; nor are some of the projects closed. The DSA is currently studying its process for closeouts and is preparing new procedures to expedite closings. Government Code ?14963 is the code that transferred the Fire Marshal responsibilities to the DSA. Fire/Life Safety review is performed during plan review but oversight is done by non-experts. Additional FLSOs must be hired to fulfill the statutory requirements. o The DSA is compliant with most statutory requirements. However, for various reasons, adequate field oversight is not being provided. District Structural Engineers do not have the core competency to provide the general oversight and fire safety related inspections anticipated by the statutes. Teams should be formed using DSEs as leads with Construction Supervisor IIs and FLSOs as team members in order to provide adequate oversight assuring that the inspectors and construction are as required by statute. Until such time as an accurate workload evaluation method is developed, the number of teams cannot be determined. The DSA has no formal Policy and Procedure Manuals for providing consistent performance of staff throughout the State. It appears that each office operates in a manner that the current Regional Manager feels fits the needs of the employees and clients. P&P Manuals must be developed to provide the desired consistency of operations.