SPRING 2022
Lessons in design for K-12
IN Session
Topics and trends for educators and administrators from LaBella’s educational design & engineering team
Spring syllabus j
Choosing the Right Consultant for Your Needs
4
Growing a Greener Curriculum: What to Consider When Designing a Greenhouse
3
Energy-Saving P-12 Grants Available for Schools
7
Purchasing Contracts as Part of a K-12 Capital Improvement Project
8
Evaluating a Qualifications-Based Selection Process
How to Engage the Community 10 in Your Next Design
2
In Session LaBella Associates |
Spring 2022
“PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST.”
GREENER DAYS AHEAD Spring has officially sprung, and the warmer weather welcomes a renewed appreciation for our surroundings. As architects and engineers, we’re always drawing inspiration from the world around us. It’s what drives us to keep up with the latest industry trends and approach every project with fresh ideas. At LaBella, we also believe in designing for a better world, meaning we implement sustainable design practices that reduce negative environmental impacts and preserve our communities for years to come. In this issue, Project Manager Stacy Welch, AIA, discusses how educators are adding greenhouses in creative ways to teach students about nutrition, agriculture, and sustainability. Solar Construction Program Manager Linden Speranza, PMP, shares details of several New York State-funded grants that help schools identify ways to reduce energy use and transition away from carbon-based fuels. We would love to know what topics you want to learn more about in the next In Session. Submit your ideas to insession@labellapc.com.
LaBella Welcomes Stieglitz Snyder Architecture! LaBella proudly announces the acquisition of Stieglitz Snyder Architecture (SSA). With this, LaBella expands our architectural design resources in Western NY. Stieglitz Snyder Architecture is a continuum of an architectural practice founded in the 1970’s by David Stieglitz. Stieglitz Snyder’s portfolio of varied structures includes educational, residential, civic, cultural, corporate, and commercial projects. The firm is led by partners Philip Snyder, Robert Shepard, and Jeffrey Kloetzer. Notable projects in Buffalo have included The Avant (200 Delaware Avenue), Niagara Square Apartments, Catholic Health Administrative and Regional Training Center, and BPS #66, North Park Academy Addition. SSA projects have been recognized by the American Institute of Architects Design Awards over the past six consecutive years. The K-12 Team, led by Jeffrey Kloetzer, has developed a philosophy that begins with envisioning the best educational and support spaces possible to reflect the culture and values of each unique project. They pride themselves on strong communication and consensus development with all identified stakeholders and district leadership. Their team has long-term relationships with Buffalo Public Schools, Utica City Schools, and Syracuse City Schools. Work in partnership with these districts has included projects ranging from major reconstructions and additions to programming and gradation changes along with all types of specialty programming spaces. The total value of K-12 completed projects exceeds $500,000,000.
In Session LaBella Associates |
Spring 2022
3
Sustainability
Growing a Greener Curriculum: What To Consider When Designing a Greenhouse By Stacy Welch, AIA The warm environment of greenhouses creates lessons on hydroponics and how fish and plants thrive in a symbiotic relationship.
Greenhouses are growing in popularity as hands-on teaching tools within many school districts’ curriculums.
factor in the proximity to adjacent classroom curriculums, expansion, public access, and security.
Some school districts use greenhouses to grow vegetables in order to supplement the cost of lunches and teach students about nutrition, agriculture, and sustainable practices. The warm environment of greenhouses creates lessons on hydroponics and how fish and plants thrive in a symbiotic relationship. Open floor plans in greenhouses offer flexible space for many group activities, including yoga and model building across all seasons.
Additional considerations when building a greenhouse are intended programs, flexibility for future programs, supplemental heating, ventilation, lighting, permanence, storage, and availability of utilities.
For a greenhouse to be the ideal outdoor classroom, there are many factors to consider. Greenhouses can range from a simple 100 sq. ft. building to a 1,000 sq. ft. facility comprised of complex networks of connected buildings. Site planning should
The materiality of a greenhouse will impact the aesthetic and cost. Most cost-effective greenhouses are premanufactured and built of aluminum and plastic. The foundation and floor would be constructed before the greenhouse kit arrives, which often includes the frame, glazing, vents, doors, and the occasional heaters. Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing items are not typically included in these kits and require additional design and work by an engineering team.
Greenhouses often require heat for the winter in northern climates and fans to circulate cool air in the summer months. Roof vents help regulate the temperature within the greenhouse. The venting system can be either as simple as a manual crank system, or as complicated as a computerized system that automatically opens and closes based on temperature, precipitation, sun, and occupancy. If the greenhouse is to blend into its natural surroundings on campus, materials such as wood, glass, masonry, or powder-coated metal can bring the greenhouse to another level. Cedar is an ideal wood for greenhouses due to its beauty and ability to resist insects. A greenhouse makes a great addition to any school campus to expand its curriculum beyond the classroom. Planning will allow a district to be creative and get the most out of this new space.
4
In Session LaBella Associates |
Spring 2022
Feature
Choosing the Right Consultant for Your Needs
Evaluating a Qualifications-Based Selection Process By Scott R. Perry, AIA Districts have many options when selecting architectural and engineering (A/E) consultants, but what is the best way to evaluate potential firms’ ability to meet your specific needs? Current research suggests that a Qualification-Based Selection (QBS) process may be the most effective tool in identifying firms with the specialized experience and expertise for your project. What makes QBS unique is that it eliminates fees as a factor in evaluating a firm’s qualifications on their merits. It’s said that money changes everything, and it’s true. Despite one’s best
effort to remain unbiased in evaluating qualifications, in this context, cost becomes an arguably inappropriate influence. Instead, QBS requires that firms are evaluated on their qualifications alone, a short-list is generated, interviews are held, and a “best choice” is identified, after which negotiation takes place to establish a fee. Should that negotiation fail to yield a fair price, a new negotiation with the second qualified firm may take place, but that has shown to be the exception rather than the norm as most firms fully understand the constraints of their market.
QBS has been the legally mandated method for procuring professional design services by the federal government since 1972, with the passing of the Brooks Act. Its long-term success has inspired almost every state, including New York to adopt “mini-Brooks” type laws and regulations. This has also trickled down to local municipalities, agencies, and school districts, though it is often incorrectly implemented like in a “twoenvelope” procurement, where firms submit their qualifications and fee separately. After the field is narrowed, the fee envelopes
In Session LaBella Associates |
are opened to assist the reviewers in the final step of the evaluation. This is not considered a QBS, as the fee is considered before identifying the best candidate. What often prevents the full implementation of QBS are several misconceptions about its cost and effectiveness. Here’s a closer look at the more prominent ones: “The QBS process is not competitive.” This is only true if one defines a firm’s “competitiveness” purely in terms of cost. Including fees as a selection factor could eliminate smaller well-qualified firms from proposing altogether for fear of not being able to “compete.” Well-defined qualifications of the project team will often require larger firms to assign more senior and specialized personnel to your project, further leveling the playing field. QBS encourages a wider pool of firms to respond with their best and brightest. Amirali Shalwani, a researcher at the University of Kansas, studied this question in his doctoral dissertation in 2017. He concluded that there was no correlation between increased firm qualifications and increased fees in proposals. Shalwani also co-authored a technical paper for The Journal of Architectural Engineering, where he reviewed 122 publicly procured A/E projects across North America and found no evidence of increased fees among QBS procured proposals. That said, some data indicates slightly higher overall fees for more specialized teams, but that is typically a function of unique additional services they offer clients. Statistics show that the cost of those added services is offset by lower overall project costs.
“A good target for fees is 6% of the estimated construction cost.” While not directly related to QBS this is most likely based on the idea that since 1939, federal construction agencies have been required by law to limit the fee payable to an architect or engineer to six percent of the estimated construction cost. That accounts for only a portion of the services typically required by a school district. According to the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), federal agencies have interpreted the statutory fee limitations as applying only to the part of the fee that covers the production and delivery of designs, plans, drawings, and specifications. The agencies, therefore, consider that the six percent fee limitation does not apply to the cost of field investigation, surveys, topographical work, soil borings, inspections of construction, master planning, and similar services not involving the production and delivery of designs, plans, drawings, and specifications. “The QBS process will increase the overall project cost.” This can be broken down into a few key indicators, starting with a firm’s ability to address project complexity through exploring options in a total evaluative approach rather than proposing a merely acceptable solution. In a 2019 study by Dodge Data and Analytics and commissioned by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), owners were asked about their firms’ ability to deal effectively with their most complex projects. Fifty-one percent of respondents preferred QBS selected firms over those selected on fee. A similar
Spring 2022
5
trend was observed in responses to a firm’s ability to handle a challenging site or unusually restrictive conditions—two common issues with K12 projects. The ACEC recently published the study, “Qualification-Based Selection of Consultants and Contractors: Breaking the Lowest Tender Price Culture,” and found that the use of QBS procurement increases the quality of the tender’s design documents, which increases construction certainty. Additionally, investing more design effort was shown to reduce the project’s final cost from early estimates by solving construction problems during the design phase when the costs are lower than after construction has commenced. Basically, a more robust design effort will result in a more responsive design, higher quality documents, and lower construction cost when compared to the pre-design estimates. Another related phenomenon is that fee-centric consultant selection can result in a “minimum standards” approach. Douglas Gransberg, PhD, PE, MASCE, president and founder of Active Continuing Education Systems, LLC and former professor of construction engineering at Iowa State University, published a paper on how design factors of safety function as minimum requirements. He explained that a consultant retained on a lowest fee basis can both legally and ethically reduce its engineering effort by increasing the design factor of safety. This act creates a situation where the project’s cost may rise above the amount that could have been achieved if the consultant’s fee permitted the
Continued on page 6
6
In Session LaBella Associates |
Spring 2022
QBS Selection Process, continued from page 5 design hours to minimize the factor of safety based on more in-depth engineering analysis. Consider a scenario where engaging in solar studies early in the design informs the size, orientation, and glazing selection in the windows, thus reducing capacity of the air conditioning, lowering installed cost, and long-term operating expenses. Sometimes doing the minimum costs more. In addition to producing higher quality projects at lower cost, QBS reduces cost growth during construction with less change orders and schedule delays. Paul Chinowski and Gordon Kinglsey published the study, “Savings, Innovation & Efficiency: An Analysis of QBS in the Procurement of Engineering Services,” which discussed how QBS projects outperform the national average in both cost and schedule growth. In terms of cost growth, the QBS projects analyzed in this study had an overall project cost growth of three percent. This is half of the national average of six percent. In terms of schedule growth, QBS projects outperformed the national average by having a schedule growth of seven percent versus the national metric of 10 percent. That’s 50 percent less change orders and 30 percent less delays. “My project can be just as good with fee-based selection.” Beyond the quantifiable metrics above, there are some more subjective measures of success. The AIA study asked owners to rate their satisfaction with the performance of their teams along with sixteen different aspects. In the end, QBS selected teams scored greater levels
of satisfaction in 15 out of 16 categories. Some examples were a “positive contribution to overall project team chemistry” where those with an opinion preferred QBS selected teams by 10 to 1. QBS procurement was preferred 7 to 1 for a teams’ ability to maintain expected project quality level. Perhaps the most telling result is of the final question asked to owners having experienced both fee-based and qualificationbased selections of architects. With only 11 percent remaining neutral, 57 percent preferred the QBS approach to only 32 percent preferring a fee-based process. Of those owners utilizing QBS over multiple projects, the preference jumps to 69 percent signaling the more they use it, the more they realize its benefits. In 2009, Chinowsky and Kingsley published, “An Analysis of Issues Pertaining to Qualifications-Based Selection,” which found that 93 percent of owners employing a QBS rated their projects as successful or highly successful. Chinowski and Kingsley’s study in 2009 recognized social factors as a growing concern for owners. Sustainability and flexibility were the two most cited issues of the time. Since then, sustainability has remained at the top of the list, but even more esoteric factors such as resilience and social equity are garnering attention. The study states that, “anecdotal evidence in this study indicates that non-traditional factors are being given a high priority by design firms who support QBS as they believe these will be a differentiator.” Additionally, municipal owners indicated that they value an increased ability to further their development
Current research suggests that a QualificationBased Selection (QBS) process may be the most effective tool in identifying firms with the specialized experience and expertise for your project.
objectives by emphasizing the positive opportunity on QBS projects to collaborate with an experienced design team. This allows them to build on the design team’s experience to better position their proposals for future funding. QBS selected firms are better positioned to assist a school district in garnering public support for their projects. Firms procured through a QBS process can provide your project with all these advantages before, during, and after construction, without increasing cost.
In Session LaBella Associates |
Funding
Energy-Saving P-12 Grants Available for Schools
Spring 2022
7
Scan for the “Decarbonization Roadmap Guide” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By Linden Speranza, PMP Did you know the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) offers energy study grants for schools under the P-12 Schools: Green and Clean Energy Solutions program? This initiative directly supports New York’s goal of an 85 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 under 2019’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The funding can help school administrators identify opportunities to reduce energy use, improve indoor air quality, install the latest HVAC and renewables technologies, and transition away from carbonbased fuels. Additional funding for upgrade planning and construction is available through the proposed P 12: Clean Green Schools Initiative, which targets high-need, under-resourced communities. For non-high need districts, upgrade incentives are available through the NY-Sun small commercial/nonresidential solar program, the Heat Pump Program (NYS Clean Heat), Charge Ready NY for electric vehicles, and others. According to NYSERDA, there are more than 6,000 public and private schools in New York that spend a combined ~$1 billion on annual energy costs while producing approximately 5.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide or other harmful greenhouse gases. Implementing greener practices at schools can save overall energy costs and create a healthier, more
sustainable environment for all. Schools that take a step further and incorporate clean energy concepts in the classroom will be eligible for more funding.
How it Works The initial Green and Clean Energy Solutions planning phase is intended to help K-12 schools evaluate or “benchmark” their current energy sources, usage, and costs by way of an energy study. Clean Heating and Cooling and Net Zero Design (carbon neutral) feasibility assessments may also be considered energy studies for programmatic purposes. Up to 75% (or $150,000) of NYSERDA cost-sharing is available for each study applicant. Once an energy benchmarking or carbon-free feasibility study is complete, applicants can implement facility upgrades with further guidance from NYSERDA or their preferred energy consultant. Projects can include HVAC, LED lighting, building envelope and building electrification upgrades (insulation, air sealing, distribution system conversions, etc.), or clean energy technology installations like solar and EV chargers. School bus fleet upgrades may also be an important consideration given the state’s 2022 requirement that all buses achieve zero-emission ratings by 2035. NYSERDA maintains an energy professional database to help school administrators select an energy or carbon-free feasibility study partner. Alternatively,
schools can work with their preferred consultant. Any publicly or privately-owned P-12 school subject to the Systems Benefits Charge on their electric utility bill may apply. The energy study area must contain facility space occupied by students and staff only.
Other Pathways
Schools looking for additional decarbonization pathways and incentives can explore the New Buildings Institute’s recently released “Decarbonization Roadmap Guide”(see QR code). This publication contains a welldefined roadmap for schools unsure how to begin the process of facilities decarbonization. Templates are available to help schools assess their infrastructure, understand, and communicate project requirements, interview potential energy study partners, and estimate upgrade costs.
How We Can Help
At LaBella, we work with all types of clients to implement greener solutions, helping their businesses run efficiently. Our LEED-certified teams apply best practices to prioritize building efficiency, decrease the cost of operation, and ensure the health and wellbeing of occupants. We see ongoing clean and green school initiatives as a giant step forward in providing environmental justice to some of New York’s most underserved populations. For more information on how LaBella can help, contact renewables@labellapc.com.
8
In Session LaBella Associates |
Spring 2022
Financial Considerations
Purchasing Contracts as Part of a K-12 Capital Project By Darren Pieters When evaluating the equipment or systems to be included in a Capital Project (CP), there may be situations where these purchases can be made using a New York State Office of General Services (OGS) Purchasing Contract or a federal-based Cooperative Purchasing Agreement (CPA). Within a CP project, a school district may have existing systems that they want to extend within a building or to additional buildings. They may have made previous purchases from a vendor and worked on design/planning for expansions of a system with that provider. An OGS Purchasing Contract allows authorized users like school districts or other public entities to extend or expand existing systems using the published contract pricing from providers who have been issued an OGS Purchasing Contract. There are several instances you may use an OGS Purchasing Contract for a CP: •
The district has selected the product or service they would like to use and/or continue to use.
•
The district has selected the provider they would like to purchase from.
•
•
A provider has the product on a current OGS Purchasing Contract or CPA. The district wants to obtain/ procure the latest technology of the equipment closest to the time of installation.
It is important to note that funds for any and all of the equipment
purchased through an OGS Purchasing Contract or a CPA will need to be clearly defined and coordinated between the school district and the construction manager, if applicable. An equipment matrix or list should be developed and discussed with the school district to ensure that there is a clear understanding of responsibilities. Circumstances that would indicate an OGS Purchasing Contract is not suitable or that may not be the best practice include: •
The brand of product has not been selected or standardized.
•
District does not have a current working relationship with a provider for the product to be purchased.
•
A board resolution exists for the equipment/vendor. Board resolutions allow owner-required services and equipment to be purchased at the time of bid by the contractor. With a long-range project, this equipment could be outdated at installation.
part. This pricing is listed and updated in the OGS Purchasing Contract agreement. 2. Technical Services: Providers can list technical services both off and on-site for engineering submittals, programming, project management, commissioning, training, etc. 3. Low Voltage Wiring and Installation: May be included if the provider has installation on their NYS contract, or can be part of the scope of the Prime Contractor instead, if desired. 120V wiring is typically done by the electrical contractor as part of the contract.
OGS Purchasing Contract and Cooperative Purchasing Agreement Guidance
OGS Purchasing Contract procurement is a New York State centralized procurement office that manages roughly 1,500 contracts for commodities, services, and technology in demand in New York State government entities, school districts, and nonprofit organizations.
Potential Components of an OGS Purchasing Contract Quote:
OGS posts multiple documents on their website associated with each contract, including:
1. Equipment: Equipment is listed by part number on OGS Purchasing Contracts along with the Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) and a discounted percent off the MSRP results in a “NYS Net Price,” which is the maximum price for that
•
Award Document: Original award document files
•
Contract Updates: Running update of changes to all provider contracts
•
Contractor Information:
In Session LaBella Associates |
Spring 2022
9
Where the district wants standardization on parts, training, or technology, purchasing contracts offer competitive pre-negoitated pricing with the ability to specify exact products and manufacturers. Security systems are a common application.
•
•
Contact information and contract pricing for all providers
OGS Purchasing Contracts per the State Education Department (SED).
How to Use Document: Guidance for usage of contract
Plans & Specifications
Customer Service: OGS contact info for this contract
The CPA posts multiple purchasing agreements through companies throughout the country, such as the National Cooperative Purchasing Alliance, Pennsylvania Education Purchasing Program for Microcomputers, Sourcewell, and The Interlocal Purchasing System (TIPS). These are businesses in the same industry that form a collective unit to buy supplies and services created to lower the costs of procuring goods or services that multiple entities commonly need. Cooperative purchasing leverages purchasing volume and provides greater savings. School districts can purchase items and equipment such as office supplies, vehicle maintenance parts, and sports equipment through cooperative arrangements. There are certain rules and regulations required for CPA and
If a district decides to use an OGS Purchasing Contract or CPA to purchase equipment, technical services and/or installation, drawings and specifications will have to be completed. The beginning of the specification will include a statement clarifying what portions the district will provide (equipment, technical services, installation) and responsibility of the bidding prime contractor. A responsibility matrix can be used to show the responsibilities of the electrical, mechanical, and general contractors and what the district’s New York State Contract (NYSC) will provide. Drawings should show devices, equipment, riser diagrams and installation details (if installation is part of the scope) with drawing notes like, “Devices furnished by owner installed by contractor.” All 120v connections will need to be indicated. If the building has a generator and is up to current code, your design consultant will indicate tie-in to generator
back up and emergency power if applicable. One of the benefits of a district’s decision to pre-select a product and provider through an OGS Purchasing Contract or CPA is that the submittal review process is much simpler. The district has pre-approved the product and provider, so the design consultant is only reviewing the design layout and wiring. Often the district will also ask for A/E input on evaluation of the detailed OGS Purchasing Contract or CPA pricing proposal from the selected provider.
Summary
Providing equipment or systems for a CP on OGS Purchasing Contract or CPA can be a valuable tool to enable portions of a project to be streamlined and supplied according to a district’s direction. Pricing for equipment and labor from OGS is fixed and vetted for reasonability of pricing by OGS. Although there are many OGS Purchasing Contracts, this is most often applicable for technical equipment or systems that benefit from standardization for training, spare parts, and familiarity of the system.
10
In Session LaBella Associates |
Spring 2022
Design Process
How to Engage the Community in Your Next Design By Stacy Welch, AIA No design is produced in a vacuum. Great design is a composition of ideas from a multitude of sources. In the building industry, the more input an architect gathers, the more successful the project. In most cases, the client is not an individual, but a community made up of residents, students, teachers, staff, and patients. Community engagement is an often-overlooked resource that that has a significant impact on the project. Inviting members to share their ideas and visions helps ensure their needs are met and the project is a welcome addition to their community. Early stages of the project development process should include community engagement efforts. Consider mailing an announcement to the community to spark interest about the project using traditional print media like paper brochures, flyers, and postcards. Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Youtube, offer creative opportunities to engage with a large audience. Share the initial renderings, timelapse videos, and photos from breaking ground and key milestones to keep the community interested in the project’s progress. Brian Freeman, assistant superintendent of Webster Central School District, said, “The
most successful engagement was online. Dissemination of information across all district platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and the website allowed for a high engagement level. Understanding why we were doing the list of things and answering that question helped the most.” An online survey is one way for the community to participate in project decisions. Surveys with multiple-choice questions can gauge what the community is most excited about and guide the project’s direction. LaBella helps clients develop key questions based on the input needed for the project, even on big picture items like the name of a new stadium or the color of the auditorium seats. Vision boards help the team visualize their wants and needs for a project. Beyond the impact on the design, vision boards represent all the innovative ideas, hard work, and time that members of the community have invested to see their vision come to life. A vision board can be used as a creative teaser for the project to be shared on social media, printed to display, or saved for future inspiration. In-person meetings are invaluable to the success of a project. LaBella’s project visualization meetings are handson, customized to the design, and
Students from Webster Central School District participate in a visualization workshop to provide input on the new library design.
involve opportunities for students, teachers, principals, and staff to be the decision-makers. A couple years ago, LaBella met with students and staff from Webster Central School District for input on the new library designs. The group was split into smaller groups and given a stack of about a hundred images of libraries. They picked what they liked and disliked and then used singleword adjectives to describe what they liked about each image. Information gathering meetings are often more formal but invaluable to the space planning, mechanical, electrical, and
In Session LaBella Associates |
plumbing phases of the project. Final finish selection meetings offer a space and time for members of the community to ask questions and share their opinions. The most productive meetings are those where the architect says the least. After the meeting, LaBella sifts through all the perspectives and data to evaluate the next steps. Invite the community to see the completed space at a grand opening or ribbon-cutting event. Host tours to showcase all aspects of the project, including what changed and small details the community might not notice on their own. Community engagement efforts should continue even after the project is complete. A followup survey with questions on what the community loves and what they would do differently shows appreciation for their input and lays groundwork for any successful future projects.
Recently Completed
Monroe 1 BOCES Nail & Hair Salon The new cosmetology suite at Monroe 1 BOCES provides aspiring beauticians the necessary resources to practice their skills on industry-standard equipment in preparation for certification. All equipment is exhausted per recent Department of Labor ventilation requirements, and mimics the professional cosmetology work setting. Interior finishes and acoustical treatments were coordinated to match all equipment in an effort to create a cohesive aesthetic within the space.
Spring 2022
11
The most successful engagement was online. Dissemination of information across all district platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and the website. Understanding why we were doing the list of things and answering that question helped the most.
Syracuse CSD Our team reimagined an existing library space as a part of a major reconstruction project at Nottingham High School. The school district asked our team to conceptualize a space that met evolving technology demands while creating a collegiate-level design experience. Our team was surprised to discover the original library was on a second level of a former gymnasium space. As we looked above the existing low (8 ft!) suspended ceilings, we found ten additional feet of structure and clerestory windows. Now a focal point for students and staff, the final design embraced the structure, incorporated the trusses, and helped create a space that exceeded the district’s expectations.
LEARN MORE: Visit our website for more information
ph. (877) 626-6606
www.labellapc.com/schools-in-session
insession@labellapc.com