You are on page 1of 10



JULY 28, 2017
Prepared by:
JULY 28, 2017

Wayne County Justice Center

Alternative Proposal Review


This report is provided as part of the ongoing contract Carter Goble Associates, LLC (CGL) has with
Wayne County (the County) to provide project management services for the development of the
Countys jail completion project at the Gratiot site. Rock Ventures has submitted an alternative proposal
dated June 28, 2017, for the review, evaluation, and recommendations from CGL.

This process started in February 2017 with the submission of the initial Rock Ventures proposal. The
County scheduled weekly meetings from around the first week of March to the end of May attended
by County Staff, Sheriff Staff, Prosecutor Office, Clerk Office, and Courts CGL, and Rock Ventures with
their team of consultants to review space lists, concept design layouts, site issues, and preliminary
cost discussions.

CGL was tasked with the review of the Rock Ventures proposal for size, spaces, comparison to the
Gratiot jail design, existing juvenile facility, operational site issues, costs, and recommendation to the
County. The report has been broken into the following areas:

Juvenile Detention Facility (JDF)

Adult Detention Facility (ADF)
General Issues


The purpose of this review is to evaluate the Rock Ventures proposal for replacing the existing JDF
on a co-located site with Criminal Courts and the ADF. The data used in the review was provided by
the County and Rock Ventures. Comparative data was provided by CGL.

General Observations

The general condition of the existing JDF is good and is not the reason for considering a replacement
facility. The basic operational approach of de-centralizing program and management services to
residential units of 10 rooms is a reflection of current best practices. As an urban facility, the existing
JDF provides the required access to outdoor recreation through enclosed courtyards attached to the
residential units, which minimizes movement of the juveniles.

However, since the JDF was conceived and constructed, the federally mandated Prison Rape
Elimination Act (PREA) was enacted. This act requires one Juvenile Detention Officer (JDO) per eight

JULY 28, 2017

juveniles on each shift. A strict interpretation of PREA would require that residential units of 10
juveniles be staffed with two (JDOs).

Leadership within the Juvenile & Youth Services Division (JYSD) expressed reluctance to plan for
fewer beds than currently exist for a variety of reasons, but did endorse an approach to the design
of a replacement JDF that assigned more youth to more normalized transitional residential units
as a halfway-in/halfway-out option. Planning, therefore, is continuing based on a total of 160

1. General Benchmark Criteria: Comparing the Rock Ventures proposal to other jurisdictions
can be helpful in a review, but caution should be exercised. Every jurisdictions capital solutions
are driven by variables that are unique to the local community. Both the American Correctional
Association (ACA) and PREA have standards and guidelines that provide some consistency of
space allocation for sleeping, dayroom size, number of showers and toilets per juvenile, outdoor
exercise space, among others.

The State of Michigan also provides standards through the Licensing Rules for Child Caring
Institutions 1 . However, much of the space that is typically allocated for support functions (often
50 percent or more of the total) is the choice of the local jurisdiction. Therefore, comparisons of
one juvenile facility to another must be viewed without benefit of the factors that drove spatial

While peer comparisons are useful to pose questions during the programming process, due to the
unique nature of this proposal, a more useful analysis is a comparison of what is being proposed
relative to what exists. The existing JDF was a national benchmark facility at the time of
construction, and even though the existing JDF does not meet all of the PREA guidelines, the JYSD
has met those requirements through adjustments in operating procedures and staffing.

Making the comparison required establishing a base of square footage in the existing JDF by using
drawings that are reductions of the originals, so a precise calculation of space was not possible. The
second task was to define space in the existing JDF by the same components proposed in the new
program. Site inspections were used, in conjunction with drawings, to achieve this task.

With regard to the proposed program, the net square footages provided through the Rock
Ventures/HOK program had to be converted to departmental and building gross allocations. These
final numbers will not be known until drawings are more complete. In Table 1, a comparison of the
proposed to the existing JDF is presented.

Licensing Rules for Child Caring Institution; Michigan Department of Health and Human Services; June 8, 2015.

JULY 28, 2017

Table 1
New JDF Total JDF Existing
Net SF (160 SF (160 JDF (192
Component Beds) Beds) BGSF/R Rooms) BGSF/R
Public Lobby & Visitation 3,204 4,646 29.0 5,500 28.6
Administration 2,906 4,214 26.3 6,800 35.4
Staff Support 2,735 3,966 24.8 2,900 15.1
Security Operations 700 1,085 6.8 600 3.1
Intake & Release 3,320 4,814 30.1 11,300 58.9
Court Functions 1,840 2,760 17.3 3,900 20.3
Resident Housing 40,772 65,235 407.7 56,000 291.7
Resident Programs 7,720 11,580 72.4 13,400 69.8
Health Services 4,680 7,020 43.9 18,800 97.9
Building Support 4,300 6,235 39.0 3,300 17.2
Food Service & Laundry 5,120 7,424 46.4 6,200 32.3
TOTALS 77,297 118,978 743.6 128,700 670.3
Source: CGL: April 20, 2017
Note: CGL converted NSF provided by HOK to BGSF using generally accepted conversions. The estimated total of
118,978 is close to earlier programs from HOK that provided BGSF calculations.

The existing JDF has an official capacity of 192, although the current ADP is approximately half that
number. In making a space comparison, however, the existing and proposed capacities were used
(160 v. 192). Several observations:

The square footage of the existing JDF is 8 percent greater than the proposed replacement, but
on a SF/juvenile basis the proposed provides 11 percent more total space.
In the key components, resident housing and resident programs, the proposed JDF provides 33
percent more space per juvenile.
All other components are similar, but more space is provided for staff support and considerably
less for intake and release (many fewer admissions now).

Overall, the proposed JDF space program is more generous on a per-juvenile basis than the existing

2. Departmental (Component) Gross Square Footage: In every space program, the foundation
is the assignment of net square footage to the required individual spaces. This is determined
through a rigorous exercise of meeting with various component managers and support staff to
understand the operational intent and application of evidence-informed space standards to the
estimated number of users of the space (e.g., juveniles and visitors in a visitation room). In this
analysis, CGL accepted the net square footage allocations from the HOK analysis and applied
various percentage factors based on experience to these net calculations on a component basis.
The result was an estimate of the square footage that should be added to the net estimate to
account for unassigned space within a component. The actual amount will be determined during
the design phase and compared to these estimates.

JULY 28, 2017

3. Building Grossing Factor: Similar to the determination of a multiplier for unassigned space in
each functional component, a building gross factor was added to the combination of the net and
departmental square footage. In this exercise, a figure of 15 percent was used since the building
is proposed to be multi-level and will require elevators, lobbies, and mechanical shafts that are
associated with the total building and not exclusively to a functional component. The 15 percent
factor is an estimate that will be corroborated or modified during the design phase.

4. Benchmark Table (High and Low Ranges): Using spatial programs that were prepared by
CGL from three urban jurisdictions, a comparison to the program for Wayne County was
completed. A brief summary of the three jurisdictions juvenile projects follows:

a. King County (Seattle) Washington is currently planning a 166-bed urban youth facility that
also includes the Juvenile Court. During the course of this analysis of the Rock Ventures
proposal, the County has temporarily stopped the project to re-evaluate the need for 166
beds and the original number of detention-type beds.

b. The YDC of Baltimore was initially programmed for 198 total beds on an urban site but,
after significant community objection, was reduced to 90 beds. The comparison, however, is
based on the original program.

c. The Hennepin-Ramsey Counties youth facility has been programmed for a program-
intensive 116 total beds and is used for a comparison due to the urban context. Similar to
both the Seattle and Baltimore facilities, this project has been stopped for further review of
bedspace needs in light of a reduced juvenile population.

Of note is that each of these three examples were either well into design (Baltimore was actually
bid) or advanced planning when the progress was halted for additional review. The issue that
stopped the progress was the desire for greater involvement by the juvenile advocates and the
community at large. This lesson is transferable and, as the project continues, avenues should be
sought that garner greater public input into the vision for youth detention, programs and services to
be provided for juveniles, and the appearance of the facility.

In comparing the space allocations in the Rock Ventures proposal to these examples, the initial
approach was to examine how the number of bedspaces was sub-divided into functional categories,
using the allocations from the proposal as the basis for comparison. Table 2 provides the

JULY 28, 2017

Table 2
King YDC- Hennepin-
JDF (160 County Baltimore Ramsey
Component Beds) BGSF/R (164-Beds) BGSF/R (198-Beds) BGSF/R (116-Beds) BGSF/R
Public Lobby & Visitation 4,646 29.0 2,500 15.2 3,348 16.9 3,567 30.7
Administration 4,214 26.3 7,877 48.0 2,689 13.6 3,742 32.3
Staff Support 3,966 24.8 3,975 24.2 2,232 11.3 3,794 32.7
Security Operations 1,085 6.8 2,919 17.8 3,846 19.4 1,268 10.9
Intake & Release 4,814 30.1 4,890 29.8 6,951 35.1 3,751 32.3
Court Functions 2,760 17.3 - - - - - -
Resident Housing 65,235 407.7 77,371 471.8 127,213 642.5 82,090 707.7
Resident Programs 11,580 72.4 9,558 58.3 38,135 192.6 29,904 257.8
Health Services 7,020 43.9 5,437 33.2 11,639 58.8 4,257 36.7
Building Support 6,235 39.0 726 4.4 5,028 25.4 4,048 34.9
Food Service & Laundry 7,424 46.4 3,220 19.6 3,475 17.5 9,387 80.9
TOTALS 118,978 743.6 118,473 722.4 204,555 1,033.1 145,808 1,257.0
Source: CGL: July 13, 2017
Note: JDF Net Square Footage estimates from HOK converted to BGSF for comparative purposes by CGL

Overall, the space allocations for the proposed JDF compare favorably with the King County
program, but less so with Baltimore and Hennepin-Ramsey. As noted, many factors impact why
jurisdictions allocate space to the various functions, which is obvious from this peer comparison.
Several observations:

The SF/juvenile for resident housing for the JDF is 14 percent less than the next closest facility
(King County).
For resident programs, the proposed JDF is 24 percent higher than the closest peer (King
County), but significantly lower than the other two examples. Again, this is a reflection of local
education requirements.
In all other components, the JDF compares favorably.

As a replacement for the existing JDF, the Rock Ventures proposal offers more overall space per
juvenile in the critical components of resident housing and programs. This offers the JYSD the
opportunity to expand the programs that are currently available. From the CGL analysis, there are
no major programmatic shortfalls or omissions in terms of proposed space allocations.


1. General Benchmark Criteria: When reviewing the Rock Ventures space program for this
proposal (2,288 beds) and the AECOM Gratiot original program (2,000 beds) and the Program
Validation (1,608 beds) that was produced with the Gratiot RFP documents, there are several
items worth noting.

JULY 28, 2017

The Gratiot original program was 277.8 GSF/bed when adjusted to NSF using our
common multipliers, becomes 172.6 NSF/bed as compared to the 153.3 in the Rock
Ventures proposal.
It appears that one of the Trustee dorm and support space square footages was not in the
Rock Ventures proposal Project Summary page, which would change the total housing
square footage to 246,381, and the NSF/bed to 156.1.
The Rock Ventures proposal maintenance component has been removed and placed in its
own space if it was included, the NSF/bed would increase to 162 NSF/bed.

Table 3
Comparison of Rock Ventures Program to Original Gratiot Program
Detention 6/28/17
Facility Name 4/27/17
Center 2,280-bed Rock
(Gratiot)- Ventures
GSF Proposal - New
Adult Facility at
State MI Justice Center
Year Completed (program)
Security Level All All All
Total Number of Beds 2,000 1,608 2,280
Sheriff's Office 25,703 17,262
Total Building SF (BSF) 555,697 328,578 349,432
1.0 Male Housing SF 350,944 169,424 239,806
1.0 % of Total BSF 63.2% 51.6% 68.6%
2.0 Female Housing SF
2.0 % of Total BSF
3.0 Administration Total SF 40,371 24,774 23,028
3.0 % of Total BSF 7.3% 7.5% 6.6%
4.0 Program SF 7,664 5,755 5,832
4.0 % of Total BSF 1.4% 1.8% 1.7%
5.0 Services SF 41,993 34,355 25,565
5.0 % of Total BSF 7.6% 10.5% 7.3%
6.0 Registry/Release/Transfer SF 63,652 47,859 34,725
6.0 % Total BSF 11.5% 14.6% 9.9%
7.0 Health Care SF 17,451 13,121 13,086
7.0 % of Total BSF 3.1% 4.0% 3.7%
8.0 Support Services SF 33,622 33,290 7,390
8.0 % of Total BSF 6.1% 10.1% 2.1%
Average SF per Bed 277.8 204.3 153.3
Department Gross Factor 1.4
Sub-Total Department Net 198.5
Building Gross Factor 1.15
Building Net Square Footage 172.6

JULY 28, 2017

2. Departmental Gross Square Footage: The program was based upon net square footage since
the design was not far enough along to review the gross square footage implications of corridor
widths and housing unit shapes. During the next design phase this will require extensive

3. Departmental Grossing Factor: Similar to the determination of a multiplier for unassigned

space in each functional component, a building gross factor should be added to the combination
of the net and departmental square footage. In this exercise, a figure of 15 percent was used
since the building is proposed to be multi-level and will require elevators, lobbies, and
mechanical shafts that are associated with the total building and not exclusively to a functional
component. The 15 percent factor is an estimate that will be corroborated or modified during
the design phase.

4. Benchmark Table (Potential Undersized Areas): The table comparing the Rock Ventures
proposal area to the Gratiot site alternatives is listed under item #1 previously. For the most
part, the Rock Ventures proposal space allocations provide for no programmatic issues or
omissions; however, some areas of concern for potential undersizing are listed below and
should be focused on carefully during the design phase:

Sheriffs Office executive administration space has all of the entry components eliminated
the proposal shows the entry combined with the courts entry. There still has to be a design
developed, as we have not seen this work that well in operations.
Sheriffs Office administrative space has been tightened, which does not allow space for
future changes in staff, programs, new units, etc. Care will need to be taken in the design
phase to group open office areas to maximize the adaptability of spaces.
Custody Administration is listed as outside security the program validation shows this
space inside security.
Registry area is smaller, and the eventual design layout will need to be watched closely to
ensure that this smaller square footage actually works for the critical area of the facility.
Health Care is smaller, and this area is the cause of most current litigation around the
country. There may need to be some flex space added here for additional mental health
staff or future programs space, but we can follow this closely during the design phase as


1. Project Cost Analysis: The hard construction cost per SF looks within an acceptable range.
The FF&E (IT) Division of Responsibility matrix included in the Rock Ventures proposal
indicates a significant amount of material, furnishings, and equipment to be the
responsibility of Wayne County to furnish and install or contract with a vendor to provide. It
is unclear in the proposal if the cost for this Owner responsible FF&E (IT) is included in the
budget of $520,275,648. Rock Ventures has indicated verbally that this cost is not in the

JULY 28, 2017

budget shown in their proposal. The County should understand that this is a significant cost
beyond the proposals indicated cost.
Rock Ventures advised verbally that in meeting the Countys IT Department they were told
that they would be installing the IT equipment, some of which would relocated from existing
facilities. This needs to be clearly confirmed and understood with the IT Department. It is
unclear how the relocation would work, as presumably the facilities they currently are in
would need to stay in operation up until the move-in is completed.
The budget spreadsheet does contain a component for FF&E and IT Allowances. However,
Rock Ventures has verbally indicated that these funds are for items under their
responsibility and do not cover items indicated as County responsibility.
The Responsibility matrix does not indicate responsibility for main kitchen food service
equipment nor main laundry equipment. Rock Ventures has verbally indicated that all main
kitchen and main laundry equipment is included in the budget under their responsibility.
The budget component for Owners Contingency needs clarification. Rock Ventures has
verbally indicated that this fund is for Owner-directed scope changes or enhancements and
that they expect to share any remaining funds with the County on a 50/50 basis.
Placing the responsibility for much of the FF&E and IT on the County will still require a
significant amount of involvement by the A/E and contractor to properly coordinate and
manage utility connections and sizes, delivery and installation logistics, and proper design
and construction to accommodate the items.
2. Site Size (In Acres): The site size seems to fit the development; however, there is still concern
that the required staff and public parking available to the facility is not adequate. The site
concept and layout is not fully developed to confirm that the adequate size is available.

3. Site Parking: The 1,500 parking stalls may not support the staff and shift change issues
involved; a facility staffing list should be developed to confirm the number of spaces. We would
recommend the County reserve the exact number of spaces until a staffing list has been
confirmed. Also, the County should evaluate the parking costs and agreement for it to be
managed by the proposer for the best value to the County.

4. Operational Analysis: There is no down-side to the Justice Center Concept being proposed for
operational efficiency. Having the court, juvenile, and adult facilities on one site is what many
counties strive to develop.

5. Proposal Content Analysis: The Rock Ventures proposal contains enough detail to allow for
this high-level review and recommendations.


It is CGLs recommendation that the County should move ahead with the proposal negotiations with
Rock Ventures for the development of the Wayne County Justice Center. While some components
within the proposals JDF and ADF programs have space allocations that have been identified above
as being below benchmarks and sizes that we would prefer, these few areas can be discussed in

JULY 28, 2017

greater detail as the design becomes more finite. The JDFs and ADFs ultimate gross square
footages will be validated as design proceeds in order to ensure that the facilities function as
necessary for a safe, secure, and operationally efficient Wayne County Justice Center.