Comparison of life cycle projects and traditional implementation models

Comparison of the life cycle project and the traditional implementation model- Lessons learned from the Riihikallio and Rykmentinpuisto schools for the Lahela school decision

We, the undersigned representatives, propose that the municipal board initiate a comparison of the implementation models for the Rykmentinpuisto and Riihikallio schools (life cycle vs. traditional KVR) The comparison should specifically assess how the school’s basic mission (education and teaching) is fulfilled in the premises, as well as the usability, adaptability, safety, healthiness and cost implications of the service and facility solutions throughout the entire life cycle. 

We request that the municipal council

1. submit the results and conclusions of the comparison to the council before the final procurement decision on the implementation model for the Lahela school is made,
2. propose the necessary changes to the procurement strategy and the implementation of the Lahela school based on the conclusions of the comparison. 

In addition, we request that a similar post-evaluation be made a permanent practice in the municipality for all significant investments.

Reasons

1. Need to shift focus from processes to the implementation of
basic tasks Life cycle and traditional implementation models have long been compared in the municipality and nationally, particularly from the perspective of procurement processes and economic models (risk sharing, responsibilities, financing, contract structure). However, less attention has been paid to how well the school’s core mission is fulfilled in different implementation models in everyday use: pedagogy, group size management, adaptability of learning environments, functional zones, acoustics, indoor air quality, playgrounds, access routes, shared use in the evenings and at weekends, etc.

According to Section 2 of the Basic Education Act, the aim of education is to support the growth of pupils and provide them with the knowledge and skills necessary for life, as well as to promote education, equality and non-discrimination. This sets a functional quality standard for school buildings and service models, which must be evaluated as equally important as economics.

2. Two recent points of comparison in
Tuusula The municipality now has an exceptional opportunity to make an empirical comparison between two schools of the same size (Rykmentinpuisto is larger) that have just been completed. Initial observations have highlighted differences in functionality (feedback received by Riihikallio) and monthly costs (surprise at the costs of Rykmentinpuisto). As the economic situation tightens, we also have a duty to evaluate previous decisions retrospectively and correct our course if the comparative data so dictates.

3. Lahela School: a decision based on the best available information
The Lahela School project plan has been put forward to the council as a life cycle model (see 26.9.2923 discussion). Before the final procurement decision is made, it must be ensured that the implementation model is based on recent evidence from Tuusula’s own projects, not just general assumptions. If the comparison shows that traditional KVR (or some hybrid model) produces better teaching and life cycle results as well as a better overall cost and risk profile, the implementation method for Lahela School must be changed accordingly.

4. Contents, method and results of the comparison
We request that the Group Administration coordinate and that the Education Department and Facility Services carry out the comparison with an external evaluator, if necessary. The comparison must include at least the following:

• Pedagogical and functional quality: teacher and student surveys, guardian surveys, interviews with head teachers and student welfare staff, observation of the adaptability and use of facilities, safety and accessibility, smooth transitions. 
• Space efficiency and utilisation rate
• Costs and contract: monthly and annual cost breakdown (rent/service charge, maintenance, energy, cleaning, property maintenance, life cycle services), present value calculations for 25-30 years (discounting shown), risk reserves, sanction models and their implementation, processing of change requests and price formation.
  
  Outputs for the council
• summary report, conclusions and recommended implementation plan for Lahela School, 
• alternative calculations (life cycle vs. traditional) and sensitivity analyses
• Proposal for a permanent post-investment evaluation model for Tuusula

5. Schedule and decision-making
The results will be presented to the council before the final procurement decision on Lahela School is made. If the comparison indicates a need to change the implementation method, the municipal executive board will prepare a new proposal for the council without delay. 

This content has been translated using AI

Answer

1