$43 Billion in Campus Projects

It’s no secret that one of the biggest markets we service is higher ed. With $43.1 billion in university and campus facility projects planned across the U.S. over the next five years—and Canada alone investing over $3.3 billion in BC, $12.2 billion in Ontario, and another $11 billion in Quebec this fiscal year—universities are building at scale. Here’s what we’ve gathered about today’s construction challenges and how to respond smartly.

🎯 1. Tariffs are increasing costs

• In Q2 2025, new tariffs on imported steel, aluminum, gypsum, and lumber sharply raised material costs for university builds.
• U.S. schools may face material cost increases of 5–10%, while Canadian institutions importing from the U.S. risk added duty and exchange‑rate volatility.
• Local sourcing eliminates tariff exposure, locks in pricing, and brings greater budget stability.

🚢 2. Shipping turbulence = cost and schedule risk

• Ongoing global supply chain instability continues elevating container/shipping costs by 25–50%, with risks from port congestion and costly demurrage.
• University projects often depend on specialized mechanical components—delays can disrupt lab timelines and escalate holding fees.
• Local manufacturing safeguards delivery schedules, minimizes customs issues, and avoids hidden logistics costs.

🔧 3. Deferred maintenance demands are mounting

•  In Canada, BC, Ontario, and Quebec universities are rolling out multi‑billion-dollar infrastructure and renovation initiatives.
• Maintenance spending rose 33% since 2021 in North America.
• Aging campuses highlight the urgency—but inflation in materials and labor amplifies overshoot risk.

🏛️ 4. How universities evaluate suppliers

Facility teams often rely on RFQs emphasizing total project cost (TPC), but current structures overlook:

• Embedded tariffs and logistics fees
• Supply chain continuity and buffer planning
• Lifecycle repair and maintenance costs on imported goods
• ESG metrics—like embedded carbon and grid cleanliness

By weighting these factors—particularly resilience, lifecycle costs, and sustainability—procurement can better support institution goals and community impact.

✅ 5. Why local sourcing is a strategic fit

• Budget control: predictable, no duty spikes, stable FX exposure
• Schedule assurance: fewer delays from shipping/customs
• Lower lifetime cost: engineered for precision and durability
• ESG alignment: low-carbon energy, potential LEED credit, local impact
• Community — staffing and innovation: aligns with public perception and job creation

📌 6. Recommendations for procurement & facilities teams

1. Include local manufacturers in RFQ bid lists for mechanical/HVAC/lab systems.
2. Add bid evaluation criteria for:
   • Embedded carbon footprint
   • Supply chain disruption resilience
   • Maintenance/lifecycle costs
3. Negotiate multi-year pricing agreements to hedge currency and tariff risk.
4. Create mechanisms to track hidden costs such as shipping delays or maintenance spikes.

🔍 Final thought

Higher‑ed institutions are investing, expanding, and renovating—but are increasingly burdened by inflation and hidden supply chain pressures. Partnering with local manufacturers—especially for lab-grade building components—offers a path to predictable costs, reliable delivery, and sustainable performance. That means fewer surprises, smarter ESG outcomes, and stronger budget outcomes.