Common use of Alternate Solutions Clause in Contracts

Alternate Solutions. The CDOC explored several alternate solutions prior to proposing the current scope of work. Initially, the solution was to site-adapt a design implemented by the Ohio DOC for its Ohio State Penitentiary, a facility similar in design to CSP. Ohio had to respond to a similar court-decree to provide more open, entirely out-of-doors recreational opportunities for its maximum custody offenders housed in this facility. The solution was to construct elevators at the intersection of two dayroom stacks, four per tower or twelve total, to connect a grouping of four dayrooms to on-grade semi-enclosed individual and group exercise rooms. Each on-grade recreational yard would serve 64 offenders. There were three major issues with this concept. At the time, the CDOC was still operating under the premise that the offenders would be managed as Administrative Segregation offenders, requiring a high level of restraint and two dedicated escort staff to move the offender to and from his cell to the on-grade exercise yards. It was estimated that an addition of up to fifty security staff would be required to operate this solution. Second, the construction cost for this design concept was estimated to be from $10 million to $12 million. Third, due to the building configuration, some of the proposed locations would not accommodate an elevator and on-grade recreation yard, and no feasible alternative was developed at these locations. Next, the CDOC considered the construction of semi-enclosed, 180 square foot modules attached to the building at each dayroom. The modules would be constructed of concrete and/or wire mesh panels, offering some protection to the elements, some exposure to the elements, and some opportunity for horizontal views. There would be a total of 96 modules, each serving eight offenders for individual exercise only. Since the modules would be stacked, they would only be as tall as the cells on the tiers they served. The advantage to this solution is that it required no additional staff, as access to the new modules would be from the tier on which the offender was housed. The disadvantage to this solution is that exercise remained isolated, with no opportunity for group interaction. Again, the solution was explored at the time when all CSP offenders were to be managed under the former Administrative Segregation status. The construction cost for this design concept was estimated to be from $11 million to $15 million. The CDOC briefly considered converting portions of the roof at CSP to recreation yards, but the logistics of moving offenders vertically, plus questions concerning the structural capacity of the roof, the presence of numerous mechanical equipment and roof penetrations, and security concerns quickly eliminated this solution as not feasible.