STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Final Report
Correctional Facility RFP Evaluations

March 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................ 2
DESIGN/BUILD EVALUATION .......................................... 5
OPERATIONAL EVALUATION.......................................... 7
FINANCIAL MODEL ........................................................... 10
BUSINESS CASE ASSESSMENT ......................................... 12
CONSTRUCTION COST BENCHMARKS .................... 15

State of New Hampshire Administrative Services
Final Report
March 2013

|1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July 2012, The State of New Hampshire selected MGT of America, to assist the state in reviewing and
evaluating private vendor proposals for the construction and operation of a male correctional facility
and a hybrid (male and female) facility. A total of seventeen different proposals were received from four
private vendors. Additionally, MGT was to provide a business case assessment and evaluation of the
state cost of corrections operation of the prisons versus private operations of the facilities.
This final report should not be seen as the complete body of MGT’s work on this project. In fact, the
majority of MGT’s work has been previously submitted in extensive detailed analysis provided under
separate cover. The specific requirements of the project included:
Detailed Evaluation of the Design/Build Components of the Private Proposals: MGT
has provided the state with a detailed analysis of each proposal submitted to determine
whether these proposals comply with both the design and construction requirements of
the RFP’s as well as nationally accepted correctional design and construction standards.
MGT employed an expert in correctional design and construction to evaluate the
proposals and provided over 100 pages of analysis and summary of design/build
compliance under separate cover.
Evaluation of the Operational Components of the Private Proposals: MGT’s review also
conducted a detailed review of the proposals to determine whether they met the
operational requirements of the RFP and were compliant with the numerous court
orders and consent decrees that govern the state’s correctional operations. MGT
provided nearly 200 pages of detailed analysis concerning compliance with the
operational requirements of the RFP’s.
Financial Analysis: The review also required MGT develop a complex financial model
and develop a business case analysis to compare the cost of private construction and
operation of the correctional facilities to the states current and future costs. This
analysis would extract the pricing provided by the private vendors and compare it to the
state’s cost of operating the correctional facilities. Under separate cover, MGT did
provide a draft model that met this requirement in September 2012, however, given
concerns over the compliance of the proposals to the RFP requirements, the state
subsequently requested the model be altered. The revised predictive model has been
developed and submitted to the state and provides a 20 year projection of the state’s
cost of operation.
This final report therefore has a limited scope, as requested by the state, and serves to supplement the
information previously provided. In this final report, MGT has provided the following:
Background on MGT’s design/build evaluation of the proposals.
Description of MGT’s operational evaluation of the proposals.
Description of the financial model and some general findings resulting from it.
State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

|2

Business Case Assessment with analysis related to Cost, Compliance and Feasibility.
Comparative evaluation of prison construction costs across the country.
Financial Model. Per the requirements of the RFP, MGT originally produced a draft financial model that
would provide a baseline of state costs that could be compared to the costs in the vendor proposals. The
model classified state costs into the cost categories identical to the vendors’ submissions. After this
model was developed, the state requested it be revised and repurposed due to the fact that an accurate
assessment of the private vendors’ costs could not be determined because all proposals appeared to
have significant areas of non-compliance relative to their operational plans and/or their design/build
proposals. For the revised model the state provided MGT with the baseline data that included FY2012
actual costs and future capital expenditures for FY2014-2019. Based on this information the new
financial model was developed and submitted in early March 2013 and projected the operating costs by
facility for the next 20 years. Additionally, it developed a Net Cost per Inmate for the total population
and broken by male and female offenders. The table below identifies the Net Cost per Inmate and
displays the projected increase in these rates over the next 20 years.

Male
Female

Net Cost per Inmate per Year
2012 Baseline
2033 Projected
$36,435
$61,050
$37,573
$74,631

Increase
+68%
+99%

Business Case Assessment and State Benchmarking. MGT identified three elements to its business case
analysis:
Cost: Do the responses to the RFP’s provide an opportunity to achieve significant savings
from the state’s current business model?
Compliance: Do the proposals meet the state’s requirements as stipulated in the RFP’s?
Feasibility: Are any identified benefits and/or cost savings from privatization realistic
and sustainable?
As mentioned earlier, MGT had conducted and previously submitted a detailed analysis of the vendors
compliance with the design build and operational requirements of the RFP’s and found significant issues
with all the proposals. As a result, it was determined that the private vendor’s proposed prices may be
understated, as those prices did not account for all the RFP requirements. This fact therefore made it
impossible to conduct an accurate apples-to-apples cost comparison of state vs. private operation of
correctional facilities.
In addition to issues of compliance with the RFP’s, MGT also conducted an initial evaluation of whether
the proposals were realistic and feasible in the State of New Hampshire. In prior studies MGT has
conducted regarding privatization, we have found private correctional facilities with annual staff
turnover rates as high as 42 percent. High turnover, which often result from lower compensation levels
can impact the skills and stability of the workforce and have a direct impact on the safety and security of
facility operations. For this study, MGT compared the average compensation level (salary plus benefits)
for security staff at the Concord State Prison versus the average compensation for these positions in the
State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

|3

lowest cost vendor proposal. MGT found that the private vendor’s proposal presented an annual
compensation for security staff that was one-half of the current compensation currently paid to similar
positions in the state. These lower pay levels may be more effective in southern and western states
where many private facilities are located and where there are higher levels of unemployment and
generally lower wage levels than found in New England. New Hampshire’s seasonable adjusted
unemployment rate for December 2012 was 5.7 percent, while the South experienced a rate of 7.2
percent and the West was 8.6 percent1. Additionally, New Hampshire’s median household income is the
second highest of all the 50 states2. The state should be concerned that this significantly lower wage
may make it difficult to maintain a trained and experienced staff. This could result in high turnover and
ultimately impact the safety and security of the correctional facilities.
While the business case analysis indicates that the vendor proposals may produce future cost savings for
the state, the proposals fail to meet compliance requirements and feasibility standards. As a result, the
state must address significant issues in these areas prior to being able to make a definitive decision on
privatization. In order to accurately determine the cost savings that can be achieved through
privatization of the states correctional facilities, further analysis is required that would ensure that the
private proposals meet the requirements of the RFPs, specifically as it relates to consent decree and
legal requirements, as well as presenting a salary structure that will allow for the recruitment and
retention of qualified and capable staff.
Throughout this study, MGT had the pleasure of working with numerous staff from the Department of
Corrections and the Administrative Services. We found individuals who were professional and dedicated
to the difficult tasks at hand. The many staff we interviewed in the Department of Corrections put in
outstanding effort in independently evaluating the vendor proposals and providing us with valuable
information. Those in Administrative Services who directed this project were proficient and responsive
to our questions and were valued participants in the completion of this work.

1
2

Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012
US Census Bureau
State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

|4

DESIGN/BUILD EVALUATION
An extensive evaluation of the design/build aspect of all proposals was completed and submitted in
September 2012. The review assessed the design/construction aspects of the proposals to make a
determination whether or not the proposals met the RFP requirements, by conducting a thorough
analysis of the proposals, various professional standards, and consent decrees/court orders. Along with
the analysis, the State required MGT to provide supporting documentation that explains why the
proposed construction, layout, or specifications do not comply.
MGT identified two core areas to evaluate the design/build aspect of the proposals:
Compliance with RFP, court orders, consent decrees and American Correctional
Association (ACA) requirements. MGT’s review compared the detail of the vendor
submissions to the requirements of the RFP, including those requirements in the
consent decrees and court orders that regulate the state’s corrections department as
well as to the correctional standards published by the American Correctional
Association. For each proposal, and as a means of comparison, MGT totaled the number
of areas of non-compliance with these requirements.
Ratings on Five Key Construction Components. MGT’s evaluation rated the proposals
on five important correctional design components. These five areas were:
o

Security Sight Lines Rating– Are there appropriate site lines in the interior of
the buildings and exterior including the perimeter?

o

Perimeter Penetration Rating– Does the perimeter design reduce the ability
for penetration?

o

Functional Flow of Services and Inmate Routes Rating– Does the design
layout provide for a logical flow of inmate traffic and reduce areas of
congestion and the need for routes to cross?

o

Maintenance Total Rating –Do the materials and method of construction
reduce future maintenance expenses? There are three components
evaluated in determining the Maintenance Total Rating:


Building Maintenance Rating – Evaluates whether the type
of building construction increases or decreases future
maintenance costs.



HVAC Maintenance Rating – Evaluates whether the type of
HVAC system and layout will result in higher lifecycle
maintenance costs.



Security Controls Maintenance Rating – Evaluates whether
the type of security controls increases or decreases future
maintenance costs.
State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

|5

o

Flexibility – What is the potential to modify or subdivide the facility in the
future?

MGT’s evaluation determined that all vendor proposals had areas of non-compliance with these
requirements and had failings in the key construction component review. MGT provided the state a
detailed matrix that identified every area of suspected non-compliance with the design build
requirements. For every area of suspected non-compliance, MGT also provided a justification supporting
the finding. Additionally a summary matrix was prepared and submitted that presented an overview of
each proposals areas of non-compliance. MGT notes that proposals may have generally stated that the
vendor would comply with all requirements, but the detail in the narrative did not support compliance,
or was found failing to meet specific requirements. In these cases MGT, per direction of the state,
marked the specific component non-compliant.

State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

|6

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION
MGT’s second area of analysis involved a review of vendor operational plans for compliance with RFP
requirements, various professional standards, as well as existing court orders/consent decrees, along
with a requirement to provide a detailed summary of any items in the proposed operational and staffing
plans that were not in compliance with the various requirements.
The MGT project work plan called for a series of analyses that would determine the level of compliance
on operational matters of the various proposals in comparison to the RFP requirements, which also
include compliance with court order/consent decrees, and Attachment E of the RFPs. Attachment E
includes a specific set of elements that were required in the RFP and there was an expectation that the
proposers would indicate tasks and deliverables that would demonstrate compliance with the various
elements included in the attachment. Similarly, it was expected the proposers would outline their plans
and staff deployment to demonstrate compliance with the various court orders and the content of the
RFP.
MGT staff developed a summary template including a series of matrices designed to measure
compliance with the elements referenced above for either the hybrid proposals or proposals for the
male facility. Categories were further refined into operational elements with which the proposals
needed to comply. The categories analyzed were wide ranging and covered the following subjects.
Administration

Health Services

Staffing

Behavioral Health Services

Training and Personnel

Secure Psychiatric Unit

Security

Programming Requirements

Drug testing

Educational Programs

Transportation

Correctional Industries

Safety and Health

Fiscal Matters

Inmate Reception and Release
Procedures

Court Orders/Consent Decrees
Food Services

Inmate Records
Each of the elements was rated as either being in compliance or being noncompliant with the
requirement. In rare instances, where the reviewers assessed that a decision on compliance was ‘too
close to call”, a “no determination” was made with respect to compliance.
There were 17 overall proposals submitted, pursuant to the three RFPs, and their scope of services
ranged from providing facility construction only with the state operating, or complete construction and
operation of a facility. In accordance with the various options, certain vendors chose to propose
renovating the existing prison in Concord, New Hampshire. All of the vendor proposals were either for
the male or hybrid facility. None submitted proposals for a female only facility. In this operational
review and with the approval of the state, we chose to evaluate one proposal for a hybrid facility and
one proposal for a male facility from each vendor, rather than evaluate each of the 17 proposals. The
State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

|7

reason for this is that the operational plan lacked any significant variation from one submittal to
another. The only variation was between the hybrid submittal and the male submittal. The bottom line
is that if a company submitted two proposals for a hybrid facility, the operational plans for each were
essentially the same.
MGT was given instructions early on to not re-score the proposals, but provide an over-the-shoulder
review of the state’s analysis of the private vendor proposals. This meant that we should not be
independently rescoring the vendor proposals, but evaluating the analysis and work of the state
reviewers to ensure it was accurate and comprehensive. However, our ability to conduct an over-theshoulder review was somewhat limited by the lack of comments or justifications to support much of the
scoring conducted by the state’s proposal reviewers. In some areas, such as the state’s evaluation of the
Medical and Program medical components of the proposals comments and narrative were included that
strongly supported to the scores given. Others, however, lacked any narrative supporting the final
scores. In these instances, MGT was unable to provide an over-the-shoulder review that ensured the
reviews completed by the state reviewer were accurate and comprehensive, without digging into
significant detail of each proposal and rescoring the proposals in some manner. This was especially true
in MGT’s design build review. To meet this expanded work, we utilized instrumentation and scoring data
that the state’s subject matter experts completed as reference in making our determinations on
compliance levels. In some cases our findings were in agreement with the state’s subject matter expert
(SME) reviewers, and in other cases they were not.
Early on in the project the MGT Operational Review Team met with the Assistant Commissioner of
Corrections and a number of his subordinate staff, to include those involved in the scoring of the
proposals, to discuss their proposal review methodology and findings. Those meetings proved fruitful in
obtaining information on the intricacies of the New Hampshire corrections system and the various
compliance areas mandated by statute, administrative rule, policy, court order, or interagency
agreement. New Hampshire, like many states in the nation, has been heavily regulated as a result of
litigation leading to court orders and consent decrees. One of these decrees dates back 34 years and has
been clarified and revised by subsequent court decisions, thus creating complex and prescriptive
requirements that must be met by the proposers.
MGT found that all of the proposals had some deficiencies from an operational standpoint. In some
cases, the proposer failed to submit content that was required in the RFP or in Attachment E. In other
cases, the proposers chose to reference that some of the services would be provided by a subcontract
with another vendor, but failed to describe in detail how the subcontractor would provide the services.
Another area where the proposers appear to have difficulties was with describing compliance with the
various court orders/consent decrees. In most proposals, the vendor made a general statement that
they intended to comply with the court order, but failed to submit sufficient content that described how
compliance would be attained. One specific area where the proposers appeared to have difficulties was
with the staffing requirements. We found cases where the proposed facility was staffed to provide for
indirect supervision, which is not preferred by New Hampshire. In other cases, the vendor submitted
proposals that didn't meet the mandated staffing levels of the major court orders or consent decrees.
Some of the vendors had difficulty responding with Correctional Industries mandates. A number of the
proposals lacked sufficient content to describe the programs, staffing levels, and number of inmate
seats available in the programs. Furthermore, the Laaman and Lepine consent decrees require specific
program responses that a number of the proposers failed to recognize and this caused a noncompliance
finding on those elements.
State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

|8

There are certainly a number of strengths in the proposals that we reviewed. For example, three out of
the four companies have excellent records on achieving accreditation at the facilities they manage.
Additionally, they have impressive policies and procedures, as well as comprehensive security protocols,
which are necessary to receive accreditation. One proposer submitted a robust plan for behavioral
health, which was rich in content and provided a staffing pattern that will meet most of the
requirements of the state. A number of the proposers presented training plans that met or exceeded
the State’s requirements.

State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

|9

FINANCIAL MODEL
New Hampshire desired that the cost to operate privately constructed and operated facilities be
compared to the state’s costs to operate their existing correctional facilities. In September 2012, MGT
developed a complex financial model to compare the cost of private construction and operation of the
state’s facilities to the states current and future costs. This analysis would extract the pricing provided
by the private vendors and compare it to the state’s cost of operating the correctional facilities.
However, since all the private vendor proposals failed to meet significant RFP requirements, the state
subsequently requested the model be altered. A repurposed model has since been developed and
submitted to the state and provides a comprehensive 20 year projection of the state’s cost of operation
broken by facility and major cost category.
As a baseline of data for the projections, the State of New Hampshire provided MGT with the following
items:
FY 2012 operating costs by category of cost, and by facility.
FY 2012 operating revenues by facility.
December 2012 census data on each existing facility.
To assist with the projections, the state also provided the following for expected future changes to
operations:
Projected census data for future years that coincides with the classification and
movement of prisoners between existing and new facilities.
Capital requirements for the next 20 years that identifies the cost of upgrading and
repairing existing facilities, and for constructing new facilities.
Projected debt service schedules associated with each of the capital requirement
projects.
Operating impacts of the new facilities anticipated for construction. These costs are
meant to reflect the increased ongoing operating costs associated with the construction
and operation of new facilities.
Utilizing the baseline data, MGT created a 20 year projection model that adjusts the costs and revenues
by category and facility assuming a 2.5% annual inflation rate. The model also includes adjustments in
the appropriate years for each of the projected capital requirements – including both the expected debt
service payment and increase in operating costs, if any, associated with each planned project. In the
fiscal years that the new facilities are projected to be operational, the inmate census data was adjusted
to correspond with the movement of prisoners between facilities, and for the increase in the expected
number of total prisoners housed.
The projections resulted in two detailed reports that were previously provided to the state:
State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

| 10

MGT 20 Year Detail: This report shows the operating costs by facility by year for the
next 20 years in the same format that the baseline FY 2012 data was provided. Much of
this worksheet is formula driven and will automatically recalculate if the FY 2012
baseline cost data, capital requirements, debt payments, or census data is modified.
This allows the state to conduct comparative what-if analysis for different scenarios.
MGT 20 Year Summary: This report is a summary of the MGT 20 Year Details report and
displays costs by category of expense and by gender of inmate. The primary difference
between this and the detailed report is the summary report does not display the cost
projections at the facility level.
The financial model demonstrates that the net cost to house all inmates by NHDOC is expected to rise
from the FY 12 baseline cost of $36,508 per year to $62,055 per year in FY 33 – an increase of 70%.
The detailed matrixes developed by MGT provide significant projections for the future cost to operate
correctional facilities and forecasts of major categories of the New Hampshire Department of
Corrections (NHDOC) expenditures.

State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

| 11

BUSINESS CASE ASSESSMENT
The business case analysis of privatization in the New Hampshire Department of Corrections (NHDOC)
assesses whether it is in the basic interests of the state to privatize a substantial portion of the
operations of the state prison system, as called for in the RFP’s issued by the state in late 2011. There
are three core elements to our analysis:
1. Cost: Do the responses to the RFP’s provide an opportunity to achieve significant
savings from the state’s current business model?
2. Compliance: Do the proposals meet the state’s requirements as stipulated in the RFP’s?
3. Feasibility: Are any identified benefits and/or cost savings from privatization realistic
and sustainable?
Our approach to this analysis seeks to establish the degree to which private operation of correctional
facilities may result in less total government spending than the State’s management of the current
correctional system, given a specified standard of operational performance.
This approach represents a modified version of the privatization assessment methodology developed by
the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), currently described in OMB Circular A-76. This
methodology works backward from the known costs associated with prison system operations,
comparing the actual costs to government of its current operations with the projected total system
costs of incorporating contracted facilities into its business model.
1.

Cost Analysis

The A-76 assessment methodology begins first with definition of current system costs. In order to
establish a baseline for comparison, MGT developed the financial model discussed earlier, which is a
comprehensive cost projection for the state correctional system that identifies current business model
expenditures for the next twenty years. The projection makes two key assumptions, 1) that system costs
and revenues will grow over time, consistent with a 2.5% annual cost inflation rate; and 2) that the
correctional system will require significant capital investments to assure the operational integrity of
current facilities and to create new male transitional center and female correctional center capacity. In
total, we project these capital investments will total $79.7 million (approximately 94 percent of this
spending goes to build a new women’s correctional facility and four new male transitional centers).
The cost projection shows that over the next twenty years the operation of the New Hampshire
correctional system in its current configuration will cost the state $2.88 billion. While MGT considers
this an accurate prediction given the assumptions provided, we caution against comparing it directly to
private proposal costs or other scenarios without first understanding the underlying costs that make up
this number. The assumptions in this total amount must be fully understood and in some cases these
underlying costs must be reallocated between the proposal/scenario and the state operation before any
accurate comparison can be made. These assumptions and underlying costs include but are not limited
to:

State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

| 12

The security level of the facility and inmate population affected. The costs associated with the
proposal or scenario could vary greatly based on the security level of the facility or inmate
population that is affected. Higher security level facilities and inmate populations generally are
more costly to operate.
Fixed costs that remain the responsibility of the state correctional system even after award of a
proposal or implementation of a new operational scenario. Even if facilities are privatized, many
fixed costs will remain the state’s responsibility and these costs must be accurately delineated in
any comparison.
2.

Compliance Analysis

The second element of the business case analysis is a determination of the degree to which the
proposals in question meet the operational requirements established by the state. The fact that a given
business model may produce cost savings is irrelevant if the model does not comply with the policies,
standards, and other requirements that define the operating environment for the NHDOC.
Based on our detailed analysis submitted earlier the proposals examined do not appear to comply with
many key requirements established by the state in its RFP’s. Non-compliance in many of these areas
may place the state in jeopardy of violating court order and court consent decree requirements.
3.

Feasibility Analysis

The final component of the business case analysis examined the degree to which the proposals under
review employed realistic assumptions that can result in actionable plans that achieve the cost savings
proposed and meet the physical plant and operational standards required by the state.
As an example, our analysis found the compensation level for a correctional officer in a vendor proposal
to be significantly lower than what the state currently pays in salary and benefits. This raises questions
as to whether the vendor can recruit and retain qualified staff at the compensation levels proposed. We
recognize that many privately operated facilities are located in southern and western states with higher
levels of unemployment and generally lower wage levels than found in the New England area. This
background could lead the company to under-estimate the compensation levels required to maintain a
qualified, stable correctional officer workforce for the proposed facility.
This is a significant issue. In prior MGT studies of private correctional facility operations, we have found
private correctional facilities with annual staff turnover rates of 42 percent compared to 13.3 percent
for nearby public facilities. High turnover, which can result from non-competitive compensation levels,
produces a chronically inexperienced work force with direct implications for the integrity of facility
security and safety. Low compensation levels can also make staff recruitment more difficult, resulting in
staff vacancies and reliance on overtime, which again has a negative impact upon facility security. In
order to address the question of whether the officer compensation levels proposed by vendors are
sufficient to assure an adequate workforce, additional research on the labor market in southern New
Hampshire is required.
4.

Conclusion

This business case analysis indicates that the proposals may produce significant future cost savings for
the state. However the proposals fail to meet compliance and feasibility standards. As such the business
State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

| 13

case analysis indicates that the state must address significant issues in these areas prior to making any
future decision on privatization in the New Hampshire correctional system.

MGT : :

State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

| 14

CONSTRUCTION COST BENCHMARKS
As part of our review we identified benchmarks for prison construction costs. New Hampshire requested
this information to give them a baseline understanding of the cost to construct correctional facilities
across the country. To accomplish this, MGT polled numerous sources of prison construction data to
identify where facilities were built and the type and cost of construction. MGT found limited available
data relative to the construction costs for prison facilities completed since the year 2000. This is likely
due to the fact that after the prison population boom of the 1980’s and 1990’s had ended, few new
prison facilities were constructed by states. In fact, during the last decade several states had begun
closing facilities as a way of reducing correctional budgets. As a result, their capital programs have been
essentially maintenance and specific need projects. The exception has been the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (FBOP) which continued their facility expansion initiative.
MGT has found data on fourteen construction examples that span from 2000 – 2012. This information is
provided in the table on the following page. Since much of the data available is aged, inflation factors,
regional construction cost indexes and a conversion factor have been applied to each project to provide
costs as they could reasonably be for a similar type project located in Concord, New Hampshire in the
year 2012.
MGT found wide variance in the average construction cost per bed, even between facilities that house
the same classification of offenders. For example, the cost per bed for a maximum security facility
constructed in Illinois in 2003 was $97,169.62 while the cost per bed for a Federal Bureau of Prisons
(FBOP) maximum security facility constructed in Kentucky was $247,546.57. It should be noted that little
or no data was found relative to programs and program spaces in these respective institutions.
However, the square feet area per bed can be used as a measure of the probable richness of program
activities and space. It is also noted that the costs per square foot tend to increase with higher square
feet per inmate, another indication of probable program richness. In the example above, the cost per
square foot of the Illinois facility was $249.93 while the cost per square foot of the FBOP facility was
nearly 35% higher ($337.45).
In total for the fourteen facilities, the average area per bed was 436.48 square feet, the average
construction cost per square foot (adjusted) was $312.03, and average facility construction cost per bed
was $137,166.74.

State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

| 15

Construction Cost Comparison
Maximum Security Facilities

Agency

State of
Delaware Div.
of Fac.Mgt.

Federal
Bureau of
Prisons

Illinois Capital
Dev. Bd.

Federal
Bureau of
Prisons

Special Population/Special Needs Facilities
Medium Security Facilities
State of
MIDLANT
Bledsoe
Florida (GEONaval Fac.
County
Nebraska
Washington
Des/Bld/Oper
Eng.
Correctional
DOCS
State DOC Colorado DOC
ate)
Oregon DOC
Command
Facility

Location

Delaware

Kentucky
(Eastern)

Illinois (N.
West)

Florida
(Central)

Nebraska

Washington
(East)

Colorado
(Central)

Milton, Florida

Oregon

Washington,
D.C.

2001

2002

2003

2004

2001

2002

2003

2010

2008

2010

Max./Close

US Pen.
Max./Work

Max. Male

US Pen.
Max./Work

Special Mgt.

No. of Beds

900

896

1800

960

960

108

250

2000

1900

400

1444

1864

1230

1024

No. of cells

600

No data

1600

No data

640

108

250

No data

No data

400

632

971

No data

464

Year completed

Security level

Total Cost

Special Needs Special Needs

Sp. Needs/
Mental,

Minimum Security Facilities
Federal
Bureau of
Prisons

Federal
Bureau of
Prisons

Georgia DOC

Tennessee

California
(Southern)

Berlin, N.H.

Georgia

2011

2000

2010

2003

Special Needs Medium Male
FCI Minimum
& Med.
& Female
Medium Male
Male

FCI Minimum Min/Med/Clos
Male
e/Max

$ 96,647,000 $146,000,000 $111,355,000 $ 89,487,928 $ 64,400,000 $ 14,600,000 $ 21,870,800 $121,000,000 $190,000,000 $ 70,000,000 $143,810,161 $ 87,188,300 $246,000,000 $ 43,614,436

Total sq. ft.

418,686

Cost per bed

$

Sq. ft.per bed
Cost per s.f.

107,386

657,289
$

465.21
$

230.83

795,000

162,946 $
733.58

$

222.12

$

538,190

364,563

61,864 $

93,217 $

67,083

441.67

560.61

379.75

140.07

$

166.28

$

176.65

56,000
$

117,200

135,185 $
518.52

$

260.71

$

400,000

87,483 $

60,500

468.80

200.00

186.61

$

302.50

600,000
$

100,000

210,000
$

315.79
$

316.67

459,117

175,000 $
525.00

$

333.33

$

645,714

99,592 $

46,775

317.95

346.41

313.23

$

135.03

686,766
$

200,000 $
558.35

$

358.20

$

42,592

53.5%

50.2%

45.2%

7.1%

6.5%

7.1%

2.7%

55.6%

7.1%

45.2%

Regional cost factor

103.5%

96.6%

90.3%

88.8%

87.3%

103.8%

92.2%

85.1%

99.6%

97.3%

84.2%

100.8%

100.0%

88.0%

Concord, N.H.
adjustment factor

94.4%

101.1%

108.2%

110.0%

111.9%

94.1%

106.0%

114.8%

98.1%

100.4%

116.0%

96.9%

100.0%

111.0%

Concord adjusted cost
per bed (2012)

$ 155,629.78

Note:

$ 247,401.35

$

220.03

$ 97,180.94

$

249.91

$ 140,105.52

$

303.51

$ 115,259.51

$

368.60

$ 191,127.73

$

287.10

$ 134,593.41

$

371.95

$ 74,389.12

$

330.66

$ 104,418.93

$

358.47

$ 188,195.32

$

373.12

$ 118,632.90

$

203.64

$ 70,543.61

$

383.63

$ 214,200.00

$

102,830

235.34

36.6%

337.25

$

152.59 $

45.2%

$

445,312

436.48

50.1%

334.54

103,283,830

279.14

53.5%

$

$

285,836

Inflation cost factor

Concord adjusted cost
per s.f. (2012)

AVERAGE

245.96

$

312.03

$ 68,656.23

$

137,166.74

Inflation factors used are based on U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation "Structures and Improvements" published in 2012. Regional construction
cost indexes used are based on R.S. Means Cost Data 2013. Conversion factors are the New Hampshire regional cost index divided by the regional cost index of the
subject project location.

State of New Hampshire
Final Report
March 2013

| 16