I do not know Mr. Zito, but if he worked for me - today would be his last day if the information above is accurate. We all understand the landscape here (prices of real estate, building, etc.) The next cost overrun (and I will bet $$ on this) will be the construction. Unanticipated occurrences that can literally double the cost of the job. Working with many contractors, I understand this. What I fail to understand is why they are so willing to under-bid a school district jobs knowing that the district will agree to the additional charges and they walk away with a hefty profit.
Summary: Propose a low number, come in higher but explain 'now' it will be 'state of the art' (presumes prior it was no; maybe even not good enough for inmate). Get the deal. Then - add in the cost of (wow we needed handicap stuff, etc.) and all of sudden the cost are through the roof.
I would think Peter, Menlo Voter and a few others may have additional info.
Do not get me wrong, I want top schools, with new technology, and a place to learn and thrive (and I am willing to pay for it) but not at the cost of ignorance that most private / public companies would never tolerate.

If the schools are really necessary, why not use the windfall in property tax revenue to fund the shortage? However, with dependence on "brick and mortar" institutions declining as a result of technology, I would expect that the enrollment projections will not materialize. Education will be taking place outside the strictures of an outdated system of so called "public" schools.

"...assuming a 44,000-square-foot building at a cost of $825 per square foot will be $36.3 million.."

That's one hell of an assumption! Anyone care to provide a breakdown on that $825 number? How much does it cost in other parts of these United States?

1. I *do* know Mr. Zito - he is a competent, skilled guy.

2. Jack, after the last thread, you are still throwing numbers around like you know what they mean in today's marketplace?

Really?

"How much does it cost in other parts of these United States?"

How long have you lived in the Bay Area? Decades, amiright?

wow.

Robert D:

of course the contractors bid low and make it up in change orders. That's how competitive bidding works. If contractors bid what they know it's actually going to cost and the other contractors don't, guess who gets the job.

Jack:

You can thank "prevailing wage" rates for that kind of a number. Public works jobs are required to pay "prevailing wage" to labor. That wage rate is based on the cost of union labor (wages, health and welfare, etc.). That is typically double the base labor cost over non-union, non-prevailing wage jobs. Then the contractor has to add his burden on top of that (workers comp., taxes, etc.). That drives the cost of labor on these types of jobs through the roof. You can thank our legislators for that.

In addition to the labor rates, schools have very strict specifications and inspection protocols because they are buildings filled with children. The state mandates for schools are expensive.

As expected, costs are growing considerably and I'm sure so are the profits for the contractors. However, I'm glad to hear that the construction workers will share in the benefits thanks to State regulations and union wages. Goodness knows, the average workers need those wages to live anywhere near this affluent area.

Kris:

would like to know what the typical profit margin is on jobs of these types? 3%. Yep, those greedy contractors are just rakin' it in.

3% of $54 million is hardly peanuts.

Roy:

3% of 54 million isn't peanuts, but neither are the risks when taking on a job of that magnitude.

3% for building on an ex-industrial site in the M2, and going through the Kafka-esque nightmare of a State Architect project while being underfunded? I would rather eat chopped glass.

@ Menlo Voter - one of the few times I will disagree... Yes, it is 3% on initial bid and after all cost = profit / margin. Those are the numbers used to show what was 'made' to prove that this was not a profit making venture. I mean this in all sincerity, I will sit down with you and walk you through how 'we' can make the numbers appear as 'we' want them. Do not get disillusioned with a published number. It is important to look at all of the numbers and all of the cost.

I looked at the assumption "...assuming a 44,000-square-foot building at a cost of $825 per square foot will be $36.3 million.." and said: "That's one hell of an assumption!" Outrageous! I leave it to the rest of you to explain how it became so outrageous. Could "government" have something to do with it? And, I'm sure there are some greedy hands out there who know how to work with the government.

My favorite quote: "That government is best which governs least." Thoreau

Robert D:

what construction company do you work for?

Robert D is a bit grandiose in his indictment of Mr Zito. "If he worked for me this would be his last day". [part removed.] I'm sure with his vast expertise and bullying personality he could work those numbers down and be a hero.

Menlo voter: I suspected that "prevailing wage" rates had a lot to do with cost. I would be interested in seeing a cost breakdown(labor, material, other) for:
1. School construction{like Sequoia}
2. Affordable housing(like 605 Willow)See: Web Link
3. Typical residential home construction.

BTW, my home, built in 1928, used 2x3 studs.

Jack:

Info should be available on labor costs as all contractors and subcontractors on prevailing wage jobs have to submit certified payroll information. Perhaps a public information request would get you that info?

Your home built in 1928 was built with extremely cheap labor by today's standards.