One District, One Way: Bringing Consistency to K–12 Construction Projects

From budgeting to closeout, here's how a single playbook can turn chaos into clarity in school construction programs.

• By Denish Sonani
• 08/26/25

When a school district passes a bond, community members begin to envision shiny new classrooms, gyms that feel safe, and learning spaces supported by the latest technology. The ribbon cutting ceremony is supposed to recognize that "yes" vote. Just as often, the route from approval to delivery tells a different story: overruns, delays, and a community confused about what went wrong.

The problem is not effort; it's inconsistency. With no one playbook, every key decision — budgeting, procurement, scheduling, change management, and closeout — is dealt with differently based on who is in charge. The result is a combination of guesswork, patchwork, and ad hoc solutions.

I've experienced this firsthand. In one district, three project managers approached their work in wildly different ways, with one putting generous padding into his estimates, another cutting too lean, and the third creating plans as problems came up. The result was not just messy spreadsheets; it was a program with no transparency, no efficiencies developed, and an inability to pass down learnings from project to project. With no continuity, training new staff was always going to be a slog, and every project felt like starting over from scratch. The district did not have a lack of effort or a lack of talent, it had no one agreed-upon way of working.

When Everyone Does It Their Own Way

In school construction, inconsistency is the enemy. Budgets may be padded or cut to the bone depending on who established the number. Procurement decisions can be driven by preference rather than documented criteria. Schedules can be based on contractors' reports rather than the actual time needed to complete the job, causing issues to arise late in the game. Change orders can be approved at vastly different rates and different tasks, which fosters anger. And closeout is chaotic, with turnover packages looking different every time.

Standardization flips all of this on its head. When every project manager uses the same playbook, the process provides consistency. Frameworks make risks visible earlier, and all of the data captured throughout the process creates a feedback loop so lessons learned on one campus can be helpful to the next. Clearly delineated responsibilities mean reviews will not be left to chance, so every stakeholder, from contractor to facilities crew, knows what to expect. The outcome is not just a much smoother project, but a shared institutional memory throughout the district: Each program strengthens the next instead of forcing the district to start from scratch.

 

What 'One Way' Looks Like in Practice

So what does it mean to be standardized in decision-making? Think of it as a toolkit — a series of agreed-upon playbooks — for every project to adhere to from start to finish:

• Budgeting Frameworks: Every project calculates contingency, escalation and soft costs the same way. Leaders comparatively review apples-to-apples, and forecasting no longer feels like guesswork.
• Procurement Playbooks: Instead of relying on instinct, leaders use a decision tree that guides them through complicated questions concerning complexity, market conditions, and risk tolerance. The delivery method reflects the project, not individual project managers' personal styles.
• Owner-Centered Scheduling: Dashboards built for the district (not just for contractors) track manpower trends, materials lead-times, and critical path risks. Leaders have sightlines into issues before they become the evening news.
• Change Order Protocols: Traditional review approaches offer a transparent matrix that clearly defines how scope, price, and justification will be evaluated. Contractors know the rules, and districts don't look preferential.
• Closeout and Warranty Standards: Training, turnover documents, and warranty processes follow a checklist. Staff enter a new building with confidence rather than with a pile of undocumented questions.

While consistency will not eradicate all issues, it does offer districts a consistent approach to processing issues without having to start again each time.

"Before, every project manager had their own way. Now we have one way — and it's the right way for our district."

Why Districts Can't Wait to Standardize

Standardization is not a new concept, but the time for it has never been better. Following are key reasons why:

• Costs are skyrocketing! With inflation and supply chain issues we feel every wasted dollar.
• Transparency is a foregone conclusion. Taxpayers want a rationale for every decision made, and oversight committees have less tolerance for ad hoc attempts.
• Technology is ready: Cloud-based templates, dashboards, and AI tools simplify standardizing practices.
• Students can't wait: Every moment we delay keeps children learning in untenable and sometimes unsafe spaces.
• The stakes are far too high to go back to the way we used to work with "every manager for themselves."

From Firefighting to Foresight

Think back to your bond celebration. Now picture the follow-through looking different:

Budgets hold, because contingencies were set with discipline.

Delivery methods were selected based on fit, not habit.

• Risks were identified early rather than rationalized after the fact.
• Change orders were resolved in a timely and fair manner.
• The project was delivered close to on-time, with staff prepared.

This is what standardized decision-making can look like. It won't eliminate complexity — construction is always going to have surprises! — but it can give a district a north star for moving forward.

In the end, communities vote not for buildings, but for trust. And the best way to honor that trust is consistency. One district, one approach, one playbook — budgeting through closeout. That is how we manage bond dollars into schools that open on time, on budget, and with community trust in hand.