Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
FY02 ASA Presentation
MANAGE REAL PROPERTY PROJECTS
Team Members: Robert Sheridan Barbara MoskowitzDyal Sharma Veronica Crawford-RobinsonGerald Hines Robert EnglandDavid Gordon Deborah AylorOlga Acosta-PolstonKen Roman
With Assistance From:Amy VandenbergPaul AllenJoe Wolski
18 November 2002
2
FY02 ASA Presentation
MANAGE REAL PROPERTY PROJECTS
Discrete Services
DS1 Establish/administer acquisition vehicles for A/E & const. services Olga Acosta-Polston
DS2 Manage the acquisition of leased facilities Veronica Crawford-Robinson
DS3 Manage the planning of capital facilities Gerald Hines
DS4 Manage the planning of leased facilities Gerald Hines
DS5 Manage the design and construction of capital facilities Dyal Sharma
DS6 Manage the design and build out for leased facilities Robert Sheridan/
Dave Gordon
3
Deployment Flowchart
Planningprocess
identifies need
Service Group: Manage Real Property ProjectsDate: 6 13 02 Participants: ASA Team
Spaceacquisitionapproved
Generate workrequest (POR if
appropriate)
Award designcontract
DesignAward
constructioncontract
ConstructCommission
space
Space occupied CloseoutHandoff
4
Service Group Block Diagram
• •
5
Table of Contents
Main PresentationASA Template ……………………………….……………………………….7Customer Perspective……………………….…………………………… .10
Customer Segmentation …………………….………………………………… 11Customer Satisfaction……………………….………………………………… .17
Internal Business Process Perspective………………………..………….25Service Group Block Diagram………………………………….. …………… 26Process Mapping…………………………………………………………………27Process Measures………………………………………………………………..28
Learning and Growth Perspective………………………………………….34Data & Analysis…………………………………………………………….……..35Unique Measures………………………………………………………………….36Readiness Statement……………………………………………………………..41
Financial Perspective…………………………………………….…………..43Unit Cost……………………………………………………………………………44Unique Financial Measures………………………………………………………46Asset Utilization …………....……………………………………………………..51
Conclusions and Recommendations…………………………………….…54
6
Table of Contents
Appendices
Customer satisfaction graphs
Process maps
Process measures graphs
Learning and Growth Assessment
Unit cost graphs
DCAB Training Program
7
ASA Template - 2002 VERSION II - 7/17/02
Customer Value Proposition
Team Leader
Manage real property projects
DS5. Manage the Design and construction of Capital facilities
Discrete Services
Service Group
DS1. Establish/Administer acquisition vehicles for A/E & Construction Services
Customer Intimacy Sustain
DS4. Manage the planning of leased facilities.
DS6. Manage the Design and Build-out for Leased facilities
Team Members
Olga Acosta-Polston, Ken Roman, Melissa Richardson/ Veronica Crawford-Robinson, Dyal Sharma, Dave Gordon , Barbara Moskowitz, Robert England
DS2. Manage acquisition of leased facilities
Product Leadership Harvest
Robert Sheridan
Operational Excellence Growth
Service Strategy
Provide planning and project management services to ensure that space to be occupied by NIH ICs responds to the customer's facility needs, is reliable, functional, safe and well-constructed, and is provided within the agreed-upon timeframe and budget.
DS3. Manage the planning of capital facilities.
X
X
8
DS1 Work requests by Project Team
DS3 & 4 Approved SJD’s by IC
DS5 Square footage under construction by IC vs. campus presence
DS6 Square footage under renovation in leased facilities by IC vs. campus presence
DS1,2,5,6 Work with OQM to develop appropriate survey instrument for 2003
DS 3&4 ORS Customer Scorecard
DS1 Award contract actions in timely manner DS1 Actual time to award contract vs. published PALT
DS 5&6 Manage cost and schedule DS5 Earned Value graphs to track schedule and cost
DS 6 Going forward: estimated duration and cost vs. actual
DS5&6 Manage quality DS5&6 Compliance with Quality System Manual procedures
DS5&6 Going forward: Number of DCAB-generated change orders
Customer segmentation of Discrete Services
Customer PerspectivePerformance Measure
Customer satisfaction ratings from the ORS Customer Scorecard for each Discrete Service
Complete process maps of Service Group/Discrete Services
Identify and report on process measures for Discrete Services
Performance Objective
Increase customer satisfaction
Performance Objective Performance MeasureInternal Business Process Perspective
Increase understanding of customer base
Increase understanding of processes.
Identify methods to measure processes.
9
DS1,5&6 Workload against FTE’s/Vacancies
DS5&6 Prices competitive with other organizations DS5 Management cost per $ of construction
DS5 Cost per square foot of construction
DS6 Going forward: management cost per $ of construction
Sick Leave Usage
Actual assets utilized/planned asset utilization for each Discrete ServiceMaximize utilization of assets.
Change in Unit Cost for each Discrete Service
Turnover
Maintain & enhance competencies for the future organization.Analysis of Readiness Index
Performance Objective
Awards/Recognition
Contacts/Complaints with EEO/ER/ADR
Minimize unit cost at a defined service level.
Performance Objective
Enhance quality of work life for employees in ORS.
Learning and Growth Perspective
Performance Measure
Financial Perspective
Performance Measure
DS1,5&6 Maintain workload per employee consistent with efficient and high quality work
10
Customer Perspective
o Customer Segmentation
o Customer Satisfaction
11
• Who Are Our Customers?
• DS1 Acquisition Vehicle for A/E & Const. Services
• DS2 Manage the acquisition of Leased facilities
• DS3 Manage the planning of Capital facilities
• DS4 Manage the planning of leased facilities
• DS5 Manage the design and construction of capital facilities
• DS6 Manage the design and build-out for leased facilities
Customer Segmentation
12
• FY 2002: 191 approved SJDs• FY 2001: 100 approved SJDs
Customer Segmentation
Approved SJD Grand Totals of Approved SJDs for Each IC in FY 01 & 02
0
5
10
15
20
Grand Total FY 02 12 14 18 15 18 2 13 11 2 11 11 8 1 16 3 7 3 7 2 6 3 2 1 4 1
Grand Total FY 01 8 11 8 5 5 6 5 2 1 6 2 3 1 2 5 6 5 2 3 5 6 2 1
OD NIDDK NICHD NEI NIAMS NIAAA NCI NHLBI NIBIB NIAID NIMH NHGRI CIT CC NIEHS NIDCD NIDCR NINDS NINR NIA NLM NCCAM NIGMS ORS NIDA CRS NCRR
13
Capital Funded Facility Customers for 3 Projects
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
NIAID NHLBI ORS NHGRI NIDDK NIAMS NCI NIDCD NEI Other
ICs and Offices
% o
f In
volv
em
en
t
% of B&F SqFt IC % of Campus Population
Capital Funded Facilities Customersfor 3 Projects
14
Leased Facility Customers by IC
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
NIAID OD
NIANID
A
NIAAA NEI
NIDCD
NIDDK
NCRRNIM
H
NINDS
NHGRI
NIAMS
NIBIB
NICHD
NITAAC
NCININ
RNLM
NHLBI
ORS CC
Other
IC's
ICs and Offices
% o
f In
volv
em
en
t
% of SqFt Under Renovation % of Total Population
Leased Facility Customers by IC
15
Number and $-Value of DCAB Projects per Project Team for FY '01 & FY'02
$0
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Other
Project Team
$ Val
ue o
f Pro
ject
s (B
ar)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Num
ber of
Pro
ject
s (L
ine)
FY '01 $ Amount of Projects FY '02 $ Amount of Projects
FY '01 Number of Projects FY '02 Number of Projects
16
• Who are our Customers?• 30 potential IC customers at NIH
• Customer Segmentation Data Shows this Service Group provided support for 28 of these IC’s during FY 01 and FY 02
Customer Segmentation Conclusion
17
o Customer Satisfaction Surveyo Status of Customer Satisfaction Surveyo Results of Customer Satisfaction Survey
Customer Scorecard
18
• Customer Survey to be coordinated at ORS level FY 03
• DS3 and DS4 Under a separate ASA have completed a customer survey
Proposed Survey Methodology Submittedto OQM
19
Proposed Survey Methodology – Manage Real Property Projects 8/16/02
Discrete Service Lead Customers Customers segmented by
Customer segments
Proposed Mode of Administration
Comments
DS 1: Establish/Admin acquisition vehicles for A/E and construction
Olga Acosta-Poston
DCAB, PWB, miscellaneous
# of vehicles, dollar amount
DCAB 99%; PWB and others 1%
Hard copy to: DCAB Branch Chief, Managers, Project Officers (110 approx)
DS 2: Manage acquisition of leased facilities
Melissa Richardson (Veronica Crawford-Williams)
ICs # of leases; data being analyzed
E/Os, A/Os of key ICs
Meeting on 8/21 with Richardson Team to coordinate approaches and review data re customers
We are exploring having a combined process map for “acquire leased space” and “manage acquisition of leased facilities”
DS 3: Manage planning of capital facilities DS 4: Manage planning of lease facilities
Gerald Hines
ICs # requests; amount of sq. feet; admin vs. research space
Institute Directors, Scientific Directors, E/Os, A/Os of key ICs
Under discussion; will be combined with survey for “Develop facilities options” in Gerald Hines’ “Provide space planning to support IC programs” Service Group
These two DSs are functionally identical to the “”Develop facilities options” DS.
DS 5: Manage design and construction of capital facilities
Dyal Sharma
6-10 ICs There have been only 6-10 capital projects in last several years; data being compiled
Selected E/Os and/ or A/Os by IC (customer may be A/O or A/O and E/O, depending on IC)
Hand delivery – 10-15 surveys
DS 6: Manage design and build-out for leased facilities
Bob Sheridan
ICs by frequency
# of and size of demand; data being compiled
Selected E/Os and/or A/Os of key ICs
Hand delivery – 30-40 surveys
20
o DS3 Manage the Planning of Capital Facilities
o DS4 Manage the Planning of Leased Facilities
Customer Satisfaction Survey
21
Survey Distribution
Number of Surveys Distributed 85
Number of Surveys Returned 12
Response Rate 18%
Survey Respondents = DirectorsExecutive OfficersScientific DirectorsSJB
22
Do the facilities planning services in ORS support your Institute’s mission planning efforts?
No0%
Don't Know9%
Not Applicable0%
Yes91%
Data based on 12 respondents
23
Does the current process work effectively for your Institute to acquire the space you need?
No18%
Don't Know0%
Not Applicable0%
Yes82%
Data based on 12 respondents
24
Customer Satisfaction Summary
• Survey’s for FY 03 will help Identify Customer Expectations and whether we are meeting these expectations.
• Service Group Proposed Methodology Submitted To OQM
• Survey Addressing Planning Was completed via a different service group. Feedback was positive: 92 % understood the process, 82 % stated the current process for acquiring space works effectively however 18% stated the opposite.
• We need more data to help quantify our customer’s needs and expectations
25
Internal Business Process Perspective
o Block Diagramo Process Mappingo Process Measures
26
Service Group Block Diagram
• •
27
Process Mapping
• Each Discrete Service has completed a process map.
• These Maps have helped identify:The complexity of the Service GroupThere are a lot of hand offsThere are many organizations involved with
most processes and decisionsNot all processes are being followedWho has the lead for each stepReality checks, possible corrections
• What Can we do with this information?Should we have fewer DS or more?Should the Steps be reduced or increased?Should the interaction and required associations
be more or less?
28
Internal Business Process Measures
o “S” Curve
o ISO 9000 Audit Reports
o Action Processing Time - CCB
29
Process Measures Louis Stokes Laboratories – Building 50
Percent Complete (planned average start vs. actual)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Apr
-98
Jul-9
8
Oct
-98
Jan-
99
Apr
-99
Jul-9
9
Oct
-99
Jan-
00
Apr
-00
Jul-0
0
Oct
-00
Jan-
01
Apr
-01
Jul-0
1
Oct
-01
Planned
Actual
SCHEDULE
Financial Plan - Gross Billings through August 2000
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
Aug-98
Sep-98
Oct-98
Nov-98
Dec-98
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
Aug-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
Nov-99
Dec-99
Jan-00
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00
May-00
Jun-00
Jul-00
Aug-00
Projected Cumulative Gross Billings Actual Cumulative Gross Billings
30
Process Measures
DCAB Quality System Nonconformities
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
Co
un
t/Y
ea
r
ISO 9000
31
Action Processing Time
0
20
40
60
80
100
early 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 greaterthan 1year Processing Time (Months)
Freq
uenc
y
.
Task Order
Modification
Task Order Mod
Contract
Action
32
Frequency of Action Delays
0
20
40
60
80
100
13-16weeksearly
9-12weeksearly
5-8weeksearly
1-4weeksearly
sameday
1-4weekslate
5-8weekslate
9-12weekslate
13-16weekslate
17-20weekslate
21-24weekslate
25-28weekslate
29-32weekslate
33-36weekslate
greaterthan 36weekslate
Freq
uenc
y
.
Contract
Modification
Task Order
Task Order Mod
Action
LateOn Time
Based on Maximum PALT for each action
33
Internal Business Process PerspectiveSummary
The Discrete Services are spread across ORS.
Process maps help visualize the steps
DCAB has been certified as an ISO 9000 Organization- Audited Yearly- Report on “Non Conformities”- Need to identify major/minor & reoccurring
CCB – Action Processing Time
34
Learning and Growth Perspectiveo Data & Analysis Supplied by OQM
o Unique Measures
o Readiness Statement
35
Learning and Growth Data Table
Very low turnover
Almost 4 days sick leave per employee No EEO complaints for 111 employees
2 ER cases for 111 employees
5 ADR cases for 111 employees
About 1 award for every employee
Pop
ulat
ion
Est
imat
e
No.
of S
epar
atio
ns
Turn
over
Rat
eTo
tal H
ours
of S
ick
Leav
e U
sed
Ave
rage
Hou
rs o
f
Sic
k Le
ave
Use
d
Num
ber
of A
war
ds
Rec
eive
dA
vera
ge N
umbe
r of
Aw
ards
Rec
eive
d
Num
ber
of E
EO
Com
plai
nts
Ave
rage
Num
ber
of
EE
O C
ompl
aint
s
Num
ber
of E
R C
ases
Ave
rage
Num
ber
of
ER
Cas
esN
umbe
r of
AD
R
Cas
esA
vera
ge N
umbe
r of
AD
R C
ases
522 12 1 0.08 363 29 11 0.89 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.085214 2 0 0.00 106 53 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005215 6 0 0.00 308 51 6 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.335222 10 0 0.00 376 38 11 1.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005223 14 0 0.00 384 28 15 1.10 0 0.00 1 0.07 0 0.005224 12 0 0.00 283 24 11 0.92 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005225 8 0 0.00 350 44 13 1.63 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005226 14 0 0.00 328 23 18 1.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005227 6 0 0.00 192 32 7 1.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005228 2 0 0.00 0 0 2 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.005229 4 0 0.00 135 34 5 1.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00522B 5 0 0.00 39 8 4 0.86 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00522D 17 2 0.12 436 26 19 1.14 0 0.00 1 0.06 2 0.12
Service Group 5
Total111 3 0.03 3298 30 122 1.10 0 0.00 2 0.02 5 0.04
36
Learning and Growth Perspective
o Unique Measures
o DS5 and DS6
37
Declining Workforce; Increasing Workload
$807.8
$374.0$364.4
$279.4
122
110
121
122
$-
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
$600.0
$700.0
$800.0
$900.0
2000 2001 2002 2003
Fiscal Year
Tota
l Con
stru
ctio
n B
udge
t
109
111
113
115
117
119
121
123
Act
ual F
TE's
38
26
57
24
14
34
30
58
23
11
33
29
61
24
8
37
23
56
23
8
49
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 2001 2002 2003Fiscal Year
Yearly FTE's and Vacancies
VacanciesOAS/CCBTechsA-EProject Support
39
SUMMARY OF
LEARNING AND GROWTH DATA
Approximately one award per employee
Four days of sick leave per employee
One EEO complaint, two ER and five ADR cases out of 111 employees
Employee turnover low at 3% per OQM Data
Specific areas are experiencing high vacancy DS1, DS5&DS6 FY 01 = 22%/FY02= 23%/FY03 = 31%
40
Service Group Block Diagram
• •
41
Analysis of Readiness & Conclusions
Skill Requirements – Good mix of skills and abilities
Manpower Projections – current manpower levelsand projected levels indicatean immediate short fall ofapproximately 30%
Training Programs – being developed at DS Levels toaddress competencies
Tools – Required comprehensive managementinformation system that crossDiscrete Services Areas
GAP Analysis- Need to address our ability to provide services atreduced manpower level.-Contract Assistance-More efficient organization
42
Analysis of Readiness & Conclusions
RESULTS OF NO ACTION WILL BE
- increased inefficiency in service delivery
- reduced quality of services
- reduced quantity of services
- elimination of certain services provided
43
Financial Perspective
o UNIT COSTo UNIQUE FINANCIAL MEASURESo ASSET UTILIZATION
44
Unit Cost Measures
45
•
Unit Cost MeasuresOffice of Research Services
Unit Cost Report Unit of Output Measure Budget $
Number of Units of Output
Unit Cost (Budget $ /
No. of Units) Budget $
Number of Units of Output
Unit Cost (Budget $ /
No. of Units)
Building & Space 14,230,450.29 14,536,140.37 Acquire and dispose of real estate 610,367.77 417,103.33
Acquire and dispose of real estate actions 480,007.43 609 788.19$ 282,136.47 412 684.80$ Maintain real property records actions 100,595.48 794 126.69$ 105,617.53 794 133.02$ Negotiate licenses, permits and easements actions 29,764.87 794 37.49$ 29,349.33 794 36.96$
Develop design standards 1,727,742.39 1,644,882.65 Develop design standards standards - - -$ - - -$ Develop and update the NIH Design Policy and Guidelines sections updated + waivers 1,110,170.39 160 6,938.56$ 1,001,696.67 160 6,260.60$ Develop design specifications for projects sections developed or updated 370,406.82 15 24,693.79$ 386,846.84 15 25,789.79$ Provide A/E consultation and technical advice hours 247,165.18 1,560 158.44$ 256,339.15 1,560 164.32$
Manage Real Property Projects 9,484,209.70 9,504,380.13 Manage Real Property Projects - - -$ - - -$ Manage the planning of capital facilities projects 1,488,497.34 20 74,424.87$ 1,421,019.92 24 59,209.16$ Manage the planning of major leased facilities projects 823,728.50 63 13,075.06$ 762,917.49 64 11,920.59$ Manage the design and construction of capital facilities $ value of construction 4,606,541.94 235,000,000 0.02$ 4,798,924.98 262,000,000 0.02$ Manage the build out process for leased facilities $ value of build-outs 44,376.37 40,000,000 0.00$ 65,779.12 42,000,000 0.00$ Manage the lease acquisition process for major leased facilities lease actions 331,935.81 609 545.05$ 408,560.40 412 991.65$ Establish and administer acquisition vehicles for A/E & constr. actions 2,189,129.73 794 2,757.09$ 2,047,178.23 794 2,578.31$
Review extramural construction projects 514,039.00 534,598.23 Review extramural construction projects document reviews 514,039.00 128 4,015.93$ 534,598.23 147 3,636.72$
Perform master and facilities planning 1,558,234.83 2,086,505.84 Perform master and facilities planning - 575,280 -$ - 586,786 -$ Perform environmental planning projects 221,026.25 - -$ 206,726.09 - -$ Formulate 5yr FCIP Reports 44,037.93 3 14,679.31$ 39,683.71 3 13,227.90$ Formulate annual Building and Space Program hours 146,959.23 1,560 94.20$ 133,501.54 1,560 85.58$ Master plan NIH facilities hours supporting OFP 813,311.78 1,560 521.35$ 771,640.44 1,560 494.64$ Perform historic preservation review projects requiring review 63,795.14 15 4,253.01$ 56,936.14 15 3,795.74$ Plan and design campus infrastructure Campus and NIHAC RSF 8,159.14 13,522,290 0.00$ 7,092.78 13,522,290 0.00$ Develop Strategic Facilities Plan census 98,393.88 28,256 3.48$ 723,045.42 28,821 25.09$ Coordinates community and agency planning input hours of coordination 162,551.48 630 258.02$ 147,879.73 630 234.73$ Provide construction site coordination request - - -$ - - -$
Provide space planning to support IC programs 335,856.61 348,670.19 Develop facility options to support IC programs # of request - - -$ - - -$ Manage space justification document process SJDs 164,278.97 165 995.63$ 196,393.64 168 1,169.01$ Manage NIH Director's Reserve space Sq Ft for Dir Res 86,903.14 82,620 1.05$ 78,475.76 84,272 0.93$ Prepare documentation of space requirements based on IC needs Requests 84,674.50 165 513.18$ 73,800.79 168 439.29$
FY 2002 Budget FY2003 Orig Forecast
46
• DS5 Soft Cost as % of Construction• DS5 Construction Square Foot Costs• DS6 Construction Cost per Square Foot
Unique Financial Measures
47
How much do we charge to put $1 of construction in place?
Soft Cost
• “Soft” cost is the cost of the professional services on a project, including fee-for-service, construction quality management (CQM), costs of studies, and design.
• • Louis Stokes Research Center, Building 50• Construction cost: $100,402,427• Soft costs: $15,041,343• Soft cost/Dollar construction: $.15• • Bumpers Vaccine Research Center, Building 40• Construction cost: $29,119,328• Soft costs: $3,226,048• Soft cost/Dollar construction: $.11• • East Day Care Center, Building 64• Construction cost: $3800,000• Soft costs: $700,000• Soft cost/Dollar construction: $.18• • Comparative figures from government and private industry*• Navy, Soft cost/Dollar construction: $11.8 (Was $.16 before soft costs were subsidized)• GSA, Soft cost/Dollar construction: $18.4 (Includes high-end AE/CM, plus average 6% FFS)• Private Industry, $.16 (high-end AE/CM)• • *These figures were provided by Logistics Management, Inc. “High-end” figures were used to reflect that NIH
facilities are, almost without exception, high-end projects that include laboratory and animal care space rather than just office or living space.
48
• Re DS5 (Capital Facilities): Following are the costs/sq.ft. of three non-NIH facilities based on design and construction cost of the facility and gross square footage. In addition, I’ve included information about the type of facility for comparison purposes:
• • M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Research Building, Houston, Texas.• This building has 230,400 gross square feet of space that includes
medical laboratories, veterinary medicine labs, and surgical facilities. It contains no vivarium (an expensive feature).
• Cost per square foot was $342.• • Johns Hopkins Blaustein Cancer Research Building, Baltimore, Maryland.• This 242,000 square foot research facility houses labs, offices, and
support spaces including a vivarium.• Cost per square foot was $297.• • Walter Reed Naval Research Center Biomedical Research Facility, Bethesda,
Maryland.
• This 474,000 square foot facility houses lab and office space, a library, and an animal facility.
• Cost per square foot was $344.•
Unit Cost Construction
49
The Louis Stokes Laboratories, Building 50.This building is 294,530 square feet and includes lab space, a vivarium, and some conference space. It houses a BL3 lab and an electron microscope suite. It was constructed for energy efficiency that resulted in higher-than-average cost initially in exchange for a 40% reduction in energy used over the lifetime of the building.Cost per square foot was $368.
Bumpers Vaccine Research Center, Building 40.
The VRC has 84,896 square feet of space including labs, a vivarium, a cyber-café with two plasma screens, the first uniform security system adopted by NIH, and a state-of-the-art video teleconferencing center with links to multiple conference rooms.Cost per square foot was $400.
East Day Care, Building 64.
This Child Care Center has 21,000 square feet of space with a number of cost factors not in any of the other NIH or non-NIH buildings listed here. Because the building was constructed in a wooded area of the campus, there were no existing utilities to tap into. Because it is a facility for children, special shatter-proof glass had to be used, and a security fence and extensive landscaping (including a playground) were included in construction costs.Cost per square foot was $223.
Average cost per square foot of non-NIH facilities listed: $328Average cost per square foot of NIH facilities listed: $330Average cost per square foot of NIH research facilities listed (not Day Care): $384 (This last figure indicates that NIH research facilities cost ??% more to design and build than similar facilities in the private sector.) According to a survey, “Impact of Federal Government Contracting Requirements on Design and Construction Costs,” conducted by Logistics Management, Inc. and published in December 2000, “Participants were unanimous in their belief that complying with federal government contracting requirements increases both their design costs and construction costs. . . . design costs are about 6 percent higher on federal government contracts than they are on private-sector contracts and . . . construction costs are about 9 percent higher.” One contractor interviewed for the report stated, “We usually increase cost estimates by 25 to 50 percent for federal construction projects,
depending on the agency.”
50
• • Re DS6 (Leased Facilities): Because DCAB has only recently taken
over renovation and alteration of leased facilities for NIH, we do not have data for completed projects. However, to produce a very rough figure for comparison purposes, we have added the gross square footage of projects currently active (995,833 square feet), divided that number by the projected cost of these projects ($186,171,000) and reached a cost per square foot of $187.
Cost per square foot data for DS6:
51
• ASSET UTILIZATION
52
• Program Managers• • Time on Time on Non-Mission • Project Management Special Services Time• • Average 12.5% 73.3% 14.2%• Ideal 27% 63% 10%
• Asset utilization rate: 95.33• • Project Officers• • Average 68.2% 21% 11%• Ideal 60% 30% 10%
• Asset utilization rate: 99.11•
Asset Utilization Measures
53
Financial Measures Summary
Our unit costs vary by Discrete Service- Track the unit costs to measure change- Develop a unit of product for the Service Group
Unique Financial Measures- These measures show competitive cost
Asset Utilization Currently at a high level of utilization
54
Conclusions and Recommendations
We do not know enough information about our customers to be able to quantify which services they most highly value.
- Implement the customer scorecard for the Service Group and address our services
Definition of Data, Availability of Data, interpretation of Data is fragmented and ill defined.
-Need to provide a mechanism infrastructure/ process/organization to provide information
55
Conclusions and Recommendations-contd• Planning is responding to external requirements which
cause potential backlog in procurement and implementation area.
- Develop process for “planning” to incorporate work load analysis at the early stages of their process
The Management information infrastructure consists of localized, independent systems which hamper the ability to work as “one ORS”.
- ORS should develop a system to track, help manage, and provide information on projects from planning to closeout
56
Conclusions and Recommendations-contd• The Service Group needs to increase communication
between the Discrete Service Areas.
- Schedule Quarterly Forecast Meetings
- Schedule annual Planning Meetings
- Team more for Marketing Synergy
57
Appendices
58
Appendices
• Include the following:
Customer satisfaction Survey• Process maps• Learning and Growth Assessment
Unit cost graphs
DCAB Training Program
59
• Survey combined to ASAs:• Perform Master and Facilities Planning• Provide Space Planning to Support IC Programs
• Arrayed their 12 discrete services on a continuum• Long Range Planning (10-20 year planning horizon• Mid-range Planning (5-10 year planning horizon• Short-range Planning (1-5 year planning horizon)
• Customers were asked to rate satisfaction on a scale of 1-10, (unsatisfactory to outstanding) with respect to
• Quality• Timeliness• Responsiveness
Customer Satisfaction Survey
60
• Response Rate: low at 18%
• Response Profile: Good cross section of respondents with respect to
• Location:• Bethesda, Local Leased area, Outside area
• Size: Very large to very small IC’s
• Function: mix of intramural, extramural, both
Customer Survey
61
• Lowest ratings among the three timeframes: the point in the continuum where competition among priorities is greatest and most disappointments will occur
• As NIH implements plans to maintain Director’s Reserve and more funds are available to meet more priorities, these rating should improve
Customer Survey:Short Range Planning Ratings
62
Process Mapping
63
64
65
Recommendations
66
Recommendations
67
68
Recommendations
69
Recommendations
70
Recommendations
71
Recommendations
72
FY02 Learning and Growth (L&G) Data for the Annual Self Assessments
Service Group 5:
Manage Real Property Projects
7 October 2002
Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality Management
73
Methodology
• All data represent occurrences from Oct 2001 - June 2002
• Data analyzed covered period between October 1st and end of June to provide time to analyze and present the data
• ORS Human Resources (HR) provided data on:• Turnover• Sick leave• Awards
• HR data stored in NIH databases by Standard Administrative Codes (SACs)
• Developed cross-reference of ORS Service Groups to SACs• Almost all SACs assigned to Service Groups • Some Service Groups have identical SACs
• In this case, two Service Groups will receive same set of data
74
Methodology (cont.)
• Also obtained data from: • Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
• Number of EEO complaints
• Employee Relations (ER)• Number of ER cases
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)• ADR cases
75
Interpreting Your Data
• FY02 is the first time L&G data were collected and analyzed• Compare your Service Group relative to the other ORS Service
Groups • What are all the L&G indicators telling you?• In the future your group should compare itself to its own Service
Group data over time
• Interpret data in terms of other ASA data• Customer satisfaction ratings• Process measures• Financial measures
• Does the L&G data, when compared to data in other perspectives, show potential relationship (could L&G be contributing to customer satisfaction results)?
• From reviewing your Service Group’s L&G data, what could be done to improve Quality of Work Life (QOWL)?
76
Service Group Turnover Rate
• Calculated as the number of separations for a Service Group / Population of Service Group• Separations defined as:
• Retirements (separation codes 3010, 3020, 3022)• Resignations (separation codes 3120, 3170)• Removals (separation codes 3300)• Terminations (separation codes 3520, 3550, 3570)• Promotions to new organization (separation codes 7020)• Reassignments (separation code 7210)
• Note that transfers/promotions within ORS Divisions/Offices are not captured by the NIH database
77
Service Group Turnover Rate (cont.)
• Calculation of Service Group population was needed since number of employees changes over time • Population for Service Group was estimated
based on average of employee count at three snapshots in time (Nov 2001, Feb 2002, June 2002)
78
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
12 16 21 30 27 20 42 13 41 3 24 23 7 18 1 2 10 11 17 31 26 25 40 28 37 29 33 39 5 32 36 38 4 8 9 14 15 19 34 35 43
Service Group Turnover Rate (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
Tu
rno
ve
r R
ate
79
Average Hours of Sick Leave Used
• Calculated as the total number of sick leave hours used for a Service Group / Population of Service Group
80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
14 3 9 31 8 17 43 38 36 33 41 12 30 32 28 18 29 21 39 20 16 24 27 40 35 5 23 42 19 4 34 15 37 25 26 1 2 10 11 13 7
Average Hours of Sick Leave Used(Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
Av
era
ge
Ho
urs
81
Average Number of Awards Received
• Calculated as the total number of awards received / Population of Service Group
• Includes both monetary and non-monetary awards• Cash awards• QSIs• Time-off • Honorary• Customer Service
82
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
9 43 1 2 10 11 40 42 7 41 12 4 5 28 39 35 32 33 8 15 36 38 34 37 29 17 14 31 16 30 19 18 13 20 21 3 24 26 25 23 27
Average Number of Awards Received(Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
Av
era
ge
nu
mb
er
83
Average Number of EEO Complaints
• Calculated the total number of EEO complaints for a Service Group / Population of Service Group
84
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
20 7 26 38 36 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 39 40 41 42 43
Average Number of EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
A
ve
rag
e N
um
be
r
85
Average Number of ER Cases
• Calculated the total number of ER cases for a Service Group / Population of Service Group
• Case is defined as any contact with ER Office where an action occurs (e.g., Letter is prepared)
86
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
7 23 16 3 31 13 9 20 25 26 17 36 38 37 29 32 39 1 2 4 8 10 11 12 14 15 18 19 21 27 28 30 33 34 35 40 41 42 43
Average Number of ER Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
Av
era
ge
Nu
mb
er
87
Average Number of ADR Cases
• Calculated the number of ADR cases for a Service Group / Population of Service Group
• Case is initiated when person contacts ADR
88
Average Number of ADR Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)
Service Group Number
Av
era
ge
Nu
mb
er
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
7 9 30 24 33 34 26 3 23 25 5 32 20 21 31 29 39 28 36 16 38 1 2 4 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 27 35 37 40 41 42 43
89
Unit Cost - Manage Real Property Projects
$0.0271
$0.0289
$0.0094
$0.0357
$-
$0.0050
$0.0100
$0.0150
$0.0200
$0.0250
$0.0300
$0.0350
$0.0400
2002 Op 2003 Op
Year
Un
it C
ost
($)
Capital Projects: Leased Projects:
Unit Cost Graphs
90
RecommendationsUnit Construction Costs of DCAB Projects per Project Team for FY '01 & FY'02
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Other
Project Team
$ V
alue
of P
roje
cts
(Bar
)
FY '01 $ per Project
FY '02 $ per Project
91
• DCAB Comprehensive Training Program•
• Over the last few years, DCAB workload and customer demands have increased while the workforce has declined substantially due to a long-term hiring freeze. Therefore, DCAB staff must do more with less, making it essential that there be a common understanding of the core requirements/responsibilities of Project Management at NIH. A training program will help address this problem by clearly identifying and explaining these core requirements and by creating a common body of information and skills needed to meet the needs of our customers. The program has five components:
• Required core training will include separate curricula for Project Officers and Program Managers and will focus on providing a survey of requirements, responsibilities, knowledge and skills needed immediately by each group. For Project Officers, the core curriculum will focus upon basic requirements/responsibilities and skills of project management, specifically as they relate to DCAB projects and showing how these are accounted for in the processes and procedures in our Quality System Manual (QSM) and Project Information Network (PIN). This course must be structured to create an awareness of Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) requirements at each phase of a project. Program Manager core training will focus on workplace/leadership skills. Program Managers will also take the Project Officer core training.
• Functional training will follow the core training and provide a more in-depth study of specific subjects covered in the core courses. Specific courses to be offered and the schedule on which they are given will be determined after completion of the core courses and reassessment of the training needs of the staff.
• Training in Use of Management Systems (PIN and IPS). This component will provide badly needed hands-on training. A manual for PIN is currently being developed as a reference for those who take the course. This will be required training for all new hires. Because the Interconnected Project Schedule (IPS) is an essential tool for managing the massive number of interconnected moves that will occur in FY’04 (1.4 million square feet), all Program Managers and Project Officers will be trained in using Microsoft Project 2002 (on which the IPS is based), as well as the IPS itself.
• A Series of Informal Mini-Lessons to Keep Project Officers Up-to-Date on Essential Processes and Procedures. These mini-lessons will be conducted by peer instructors either within DCAB or in some appropriate other branch of DES. Curriculum will include instruction in a specific process (such as radiography) or procedure with which Project Officers must be familiar but which they may not encounter frequently. Instruction will take place during team staff meetings and will be video-recorded for showing to new hires, those who miss the first instruction, and those who need refreshers. A short test will follow each lesson to serve as reinforcement of concepts and to provide a record of who has taken the lesson. In addition, a single-sheet handout will summarize the main points, and these sheets will be kept in a binder for future reference.
• Orientation. A program that focuses on helping newly-hired Project Officers become immediately effective on the job. Newly hired Project Officers will learn the mission of NIH as well as the organization and roles of ORS/DES/DCAB; the chains of command within NIH; resources available to Project Officers; stakeholders and how to contact them; management systems used on the job; and the required core of project management courses.
•
