Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Frequently Asked Questions

The most common issue is lack of documentation, not lack of need. Applications should be supported by:

• Work orders
• Maintenance records
• Photographs
• Inspection reports
• Historical documentation

Strong documentation is essential to substantiate project need and maximize scoring. 

Narratives should be included throughout the application where appropriate, particularly in:

Section 3D – Project Description

Districts are encouraged to explain:

• What is needed
• Why it is needed
• How it affects students and educational delivery
• Why the proposed solution is appropriate

Narrative should always be supported by quantitative data and documentation whenever possible.

Applications are scored based on documented need and supporting evidence, not presentation quality. Smaller districts can be highly competitive by:

• Maintaining good documentation
• Providing thorough narratives
• Supporting claims with data
• Demonstrating clear project need

Yes. The Facilities Section is available to answer questions throughout the application cycle. Q&A sessions are offered on the third Thursday of each month leading up to the CIP Application deadline on September 1.

The condition survey serves as the foundation of the CIP application and supports:

• Facility condition scoring
• Project justification
• Scope development
• Cost estimating

Districts are encouraged to begin planning condition surveys well before application deadlines.

Before conducting a survey, districts should:

• Define project goals
• Gather existing documentation
• Assemble work orders and maintenance records
• Collect photographs and previous reports
• Review available drawings and plans
• Understand site logistics and travel requirements

The more information available to the surveyor, the better the resulting report will be.

A full facility condition survey is generally appropriate for:

• School construction projects
• Major maintenance projects affecting multiple systems
• Projects involving substantial portions of a facility

A component survey may be sufficient when a project only affects specific systems or components.

Condition surveys may be completed by:

• District staff with appropriate expertise
• Architects
• Engineers
• Qualified consultants

Depending on the project, some component surveys may be completed using photographs and documentation without requiring an onsite visit.

Condition surveys less than six years old receive full scoring credit.

Older surveys may receive reduced points unless they are supplemented with updated documentation relevant to the project scope.

The short answer is yes, but it depends.

A district may update portions of an older facility condition survey through an internally completed component survey if the survey is relevant to the project scope and provides sufficient documentation to support the identified deficiencies.

The extent of the update needed will depend on the age and completeness of the original survey, the systems involved, and the nature of the proposed project.

Districts are encouraged to contact the Facilities Section if they have questions regarding a specific condition survey and how it may be scored.

Hazardous materials testing should be completed when it is necessary to define project scope, determine project costs, or support design and construction activities.

Districts should consult with their design professionals regarding appropriate timing.

DEED currently recognizes multiple methods for projecting ADM, including:

1. Attendance Area ADM & GSF Calculations Spreadsheet - 2026 Attendance Area ADM & GSF Calculations (excel)
2. Attendance Area ADM Cohort Survival Ratio Calculations Spreadsheet - Attendance Area ADM Cohort Survival Ratio Calculations (excel)
3. Other approved methods supported by adequate documentation

Yes.

Alternative ADM projection methods may be accepted if they are:

• Supported by data
• Reasonable and defensible
• Clearly explained within the application

Supporting documentation should accompany any alternative projection methodology.

If using an alternative ADM projection, we recommend that districts reach out to the department to discuss previous to submitting their application.

Districts should provide documentation explaining:

• Why enrollment declined
• Why students are expected to return
• Evidence supporting future enrollment projections

Narrative explanations should be accompanied by supporting data whenever possible.

The standard Attendance Area ADM & GSF Calculation tool may not always provide realistic projections for very small schools.

As a general rule, schools with fewer than approximately 50 students should carefully review calculated projections and make adjustments where supported by data.

No.

Sections should only be completed if they are applicable to the project scope. Scoring is weighted based on the systems being addressed and associated project costs.

Maintenance documentation is one of the easiest areas to improve application scores.

Districts should ensure that required maintenance submittals are complete and supported by:

• Work orders
• Preventive maintenance records
• Training documentation
• Energy management records
• Other required supporting materials

In general, points are not awarded solely because an older facility lacks a fire alarm or sprinkler system that was not required when the facility was originally constructed.

However, projects are evaluated individually, and exceptions may be appropriate depending on the specific circumstances, code issues, life-safety concerns, and overall project scope.

Districts should provide documentation supporting the need and expected benefit of the proposed improvements.

Districts should explain:

• Cost outliers
• Unusual assumptions
• Unique site conditions
• Complex project requirements

The narrative should help reviewers understand how costs were developed.

Yes.

Projects may utilize:

• State funding
• Federal funding
• Tribal funding
• Municipal funding
• Other local contributions

Funding arrangements should be clearly identified within the project documentation.

Project costs should generally remain within established DEED guidelines.

If soft cost (not directly associated with constructing the facility) and associated project costs exceed typical thresholds, districts should provide supporting justification.

Examples include:

• Local capital funds
• Operating funds
• Tribal partnerships
• Federal grants
• Other agency partnerships

Districts are encouraged to explore multiple funding opportunities early in project development.

District administrative costs may be charged as indirect administrative costs or as documented, project-specific costs.

Indirect administrative costs include an allocable share of general district administrative and operating expenses associated with the project, such as payroll, accounts payable, procurement, and other administrative support. Unless the district provides documented evidence of higher project-specific indirect administrative costs, reimbursement is limited under 4 AAC 31.023(c)(7) as follows:

• Construction costs of $500,000 or less: Up to 3% of construction costs.
• Construction costs over $500,000 but less than $5 million: The greater of $15,000 or 2% of construction costs.
• Construction costs of $5 million or more: The greater of $100,000 or 1% of construction costs.

A district may seek reimbursement above these limits when it maintains detailed documentation showing that actual project-specific indirect administrative costs exceeded the standard allowance.

Districts should retain records supporting administrative charges and consult the project agreement and Facilities Section guidance when determining which costs are eligible. For this calculation, “construction costs” include contracted construction work and force-account costs for facility construction, site preparation, site improvements, and utilities.

Yes.

As long as a vendor's services or products are procured competitively through an approved cooperative purchasing agreement or master agreement, the procurement is generally acceptable.

Helpful resources:

• Alaska Statewide Master Agreements
  https://oppm.doa.alaska.gov/alaska-centers-of-procurement-excellence/statewide-master-agreements/
• Alaska Contract Log
  https://oppm.doa.alaska.gov/media/2015/oppm-contract-log.xlsm

Districts should maintain documentation demonstrating compliance with applicable procurement requirements.

Yes.

Emergency procurement may be utilized when immediate action is necessary to:

• Protect the health, safety, and welfare of students and staff
• Preserve public property
• Maintain essential school operations

Emergency procurement should be limited to work necessary to stabilize the situation and prevent further damage.

Competition should be obtained whenever practicable under the circumstances.

Districts must maintain documentation supporting:

• The emergency determination
• Contractor selection
• Associated costs

Permanent repairs and improvements beyond the immediate emergency should generally be procured through normal procurement procedures.

Districts are strongly encouraged to contact the Facilities Section when utilizing emergency procurement. The department can assist in evaluating options and identifying available resources.

Fixtures, Furniture & Equipment (FF&E) generally includes items installed as part of the facility, such as:

• Intercom systems
• Built-in equipment
• Certain specialized building systems

Equipment & Technology (E&T) generally includes movable items such as:

• Desks
• Chairs
• Instructional technology
• Maintenance equipment

Refer to Guidelines for School Equipment Purchases (pdf) for additional information.

Yes.

Potential updates under consideration include:

• Guide to School Facility Condition Surveys
• Handbook to Writing Educational Specifications
• CIP process flow charts
• Related Facilities guidance documents

These updates will occur with assistance from the Bond Reimbursement and Grant Review (BRGR) Committee.

Stakeholder participation is encouraged. Those interested in helping shape future guidance should participate through the BRGR process.

The short answer is yes.

While every situation is unique, districts should notify their insurance carrier whenever an emergency event results in facility damage or loss.

Insurance is an important resource and should be considered as part of the district's response and recovery efforts.

Yes.

DEED will provide confirmation of receipt via email shortly after the application deadline has passed and submissions have been processed.