Upload
jairo-morison
View
220
Download
7
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CAMPUS FACILITIES OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESSFINAL DRAFT FOR JUNE 6TH, 2012
PREPARED BY: CAMPUS FACILITIES PLANNING GROUP
PREPARED FOR: FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT
March 20th & April 19th, 2012
• CFPG held two planning retreats to develop several organizational models that merge or co-locate functions to streamline and improve service delivery
May 21st, 2012
• CFPG provides debrief to FAC on scenarios under consideration
• FAC provides feedback to refine scope of recommendations, benefits/cons to evaluate, as well as questions to address
June 4th, 2012
• Final CFPG planning retreat to finalize recommendations
June 6th, 2012
• CFPG shares finalized recommendations, targeted benefits, as well as timeline for implementation
• FAC provides feedback to fine-tune recommendations
June 7th, 2012
• Marc and Willie present preliminary recommendations, endorsed by FAC, to OE Project Leaders & Committee Chairs
Timeline & Key Milestones
We Are Here
Setting the Stage
DRAFT
2002 20120
5,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000
SF Assigned Per Cus-todian
SF Assigned Per Custodian
2002 20120
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
SF Assigned Per Trades Worker
SF Assigned Per Trades Worker
2002 2012100
105
110
115
120
125
130
Custodial Workforce FTE
Custodial Work-force FTE
2002 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Trades Workforce FTE
Trades Workforce FTE
GROUNDS
DRAFT
GROUNDS
Planning Group Objectives
1. Adopt a shared standard and metric for all of grounds
2. Define ‘Tier System’ of Service Levels & Service Goals
3. Identify Operational Effectiveness Strategies To-Date and Recommendations Moving Forward
DRAFT
Adopt a shared standard and metric
Modified APPA Grounds Service Level Standards
Level 1Highest quality maintenance applied to diverse landscape. High visibility areas. Priority tiered according to highest volume of traffic. [Includes 3 Tiers of service quality]
Level 2
Moderate level of maintenance associated with well developed public areas and residence halls. Recommended level for most areas.
Level 3
Natural areas that are not developed (e.g., wetlands, reserves, unirrigated, fire abatement mowing)
DRAFT
Define Service Level Tiers
1. Identified 3 Service Levels & Tiers for Maintained Acreage
1. Level 1 : Highest quality maintenance [~ 45% of total acreage]
• 3 Tiers of Service within Level 1 [See next slide]
2. Level 2 : Moderate level of maintenance[~ 50% of total acreage]
• Around Residence Halls; Campus Buildings
3. Level 3 : Natural area that is not developed [~ 5% of total acreage]
• Lagoon Road; Rear of Marine Lab
DRAFT
Samples of Service Standards in Grounds
DRAFT
Level 1Tier 1
Level 1Tier 2
Level 1Tier 3
Level 1 Highest quality maintenance areas on campusTier 1 – High visibility/High traffic – Channel Island 5; Manzanita; Henley Gate; DLG Commons; University Plaza; North/South Corridor; Library Mall; Harder Stadium; Women’s Softball; Baseball Stadium Tier 2 – Moderate visibility/moderate traffic – San Rafael Res Hall; Santa Catalina; Chase Park; Creative Studies; Library LawnTier 3 – Lower visibility/low traffic – Marine biology; Commencement Green; Faculty Club; University Plaza Circle; Santa Ynez
Samples of Service Standards in Grounds
DRAFT
Level 2
Level 3
Level 2 – Moderate quality maintenance areas with moderate visibility and trafficExamples – All other campus apartments; El Dorado; West Gate; Storke Apts.; Rudy House; Fenita House; El Colegio road median; East Bluffs; Student Health Lawn; Bottom of arts building; Parking Lot 11; Military Science area; EH&S; Facilities Grounds
Level 3 – Natural area that is not developed
Grounds OE Strategies To-Date1. Redistribute acreage between departments to optimize grounds
staff productivity
2. Combine Pest Control Contract, in partnership with Purchasing, to realize over 25% savings annually (~ $50K total)
3. FM and H&RS get diesel fuel at FM grounds yard
4. Both Grounds units collaborate on areas of Campus high priority areas like the Commencement Green or Campus Entrances
5. Both Grounds departments share equipment as needed (Planning to start sharing shop equipment repair facilities as needed)
6. Both Grounds departments have been available to assist each other with labor as needed on projects or emergencies
DRAFT
Recommended Strategies to Improve Grounds Appearance
Identified Service Level Goals1. For Level 1 Baseline : Increase from 45% to 50% of
Maintained Acreage [e.g., Academic green; Pardall Corridor; Library Mall; Bus Loop]
2. For Level 2 Baseline : Decrease from 50% to 45% of Maintained Acreage
Recommended Strategies
3. Additional equipment investment for mechanized sweeping
4. Converting backpack blowing to sweeper reduces need to add additional staff and has environmental advantages
5. Increase in field supervision by adding Grounds Supervisor FTE
6. Establish an annual landscape renewal fund
DRAFT
Benefits
1. Saving of 1.5 FTE by transitioning from 16 backpack blowers requiring 90 man hrs/week to Sweeper Operator for 34 acres of plaza space and walkways
2. 1.5 FTE would be freed up to focus on landscape maintenance and improvements
3. Dramatically reduce operation of backpack blowers, which use a highly polluting 2-cycle gas/oil blend to operate
4. Dramatic reduction in airborne dust particulates
5. New Sweeper could be either high-efficiency Tier 3 Diesel or Electric, a vast environmental improvement over blowers
DRAFT
Recommended Grounds OE Strategies
① Adopt Campus Landscape & Design Guidelines
Benefits:
a) Create a consistent and visually unified landscape
b) Reduce repetitive injuries and unsafe maintenance situations
c) Reduce watering
d) Reduce maintenance time
DRAFT
Recommended Grounds OE Strategies
② Operate as ‘Gaucho Grounds’, a Unified Grounds Department with Two Divisions
How?
a) Conduct shared training programs and events
b) Hold shared BBQ/Social Events
c) Establish Monthly Managers’ Forum to share best practices and align management and supervisory approaches. Key Focus:
• Collaborate on Major Maintenance decisions• Partner on Grounds Deferred Maintenance
Projects
DRAFT
Recommended Grounds OE Strategies
③ Mechanizing the grounds maintenance workflow to improve efficiency
How?
a) Formalize sequencing of edging, mowing and pavement sweeping
b) Reduce outside refuse cansc) Explore shift change from 5am to 6am
DRAFT
Cost Summary for Grounds Improvements
① Sweeper Purchase Cost: $100,000
② Annual Sweeper Maintenance: $10,000
③ Grounds Supervisor: $78,316
④ Annual Landscape Renewal Fund: $300,000 Represents a $300 per acre annual spend
• FY 2012-13 [Year 1] $488,316• FY 2013-14 [Year 2 and forward] $388,316• Net increase in FTE: 2.5, by including 1.5 FTE
redeployment from backpack blowing to landscape maintenance and improvements
DRAFT
CUSTODIAL & HOUSEKEEPING
DRAFT
CUSTODIAL
Planning Group Objectives
1. Adopt a shared standard and metric for all Custodial/Housekeeping Services
2. Define Baseline Service Levels & Service Goals
3. Identify Operational Effectiveness Strategies To-Date and Recommendations Moving Forward
DRAFT
Adopt a shared standard and metric
APPA Custodial/Housekeeping Appearance Rating
• Level 1 – Orderly Spotlessness
• Level 2 – Ordinary Tidiness
• Level 3 – Moderate wear and tear
• Level 4 –Extreme wear and tear
DRAFT
Defining Baseline Appearance Rating
1. At UCSB, We Range Between Level 2 and Level 4
1. Level 2 : Ordinary Tidiness • Residential Hallways and Bathrooms• Student Health & Child Care Facilities*• New Buildings
2. Level 3 : Moderate wear and tear• Older Buildings
3. Level 4 : Extreme wear and tear• Oldest Buildings in Disrepair; Slated for Demolition
*Should be maintained at Level 1
DRAFT
Level 4 Sample – Extreme Wear & Tear
Improving Academic Space Appearance Standards1. Bathroom Appearance Improvements
• Goal: Level 1 & 2*• For Physical Facility maintained bathrooms, would require a
renewal cycle/schedule• Bathrooms – Propose a renewal/remodel cycle for older
bathrooms [3% of 526 bathrooms renewed on an annual cycle; $50,000 per bathroom]
[Total Estimated Annual Cost: $780,000]• Recommend adopting a unified restroom materials and
surfaces palette to ensure durability and ease of cleaning• Baseline: Ranges between Level 2 and 4, depending on building
condition
*Areas tiered as ‘Level 1’ would include: Student Health, Child Care Facilities, Rec Center, and Library; Remaining PF-maintained buildings would be maintained at Level 2 standard
DRAFT
Improving Academic Space Appearance Standards
2. Deep Cleaning Improvements
a) Utility Crew Deep Cleaning Areas• Carpets – Annual deep clean• Lab Floors – Annual deep clean [scrubbing & cleaning]• Hallway Floor Work – Light scrub/recoat 1x/a year; Full
strip every 10 yrs• Classrooms & Lecture Halls – Add quarterly detailing
service
Adding 8 laborers For maintaining first floor bathrooms at goal standard, and carrying out deep cleaning
[Estimated Cost: 8 laborer FTE = $550,416]
b) Windows – 24 month cycle [Estimated cost: $125,000 annually]
DRAFT
Recommended Staff Increase in Relation to APPA Standards• APPA recommends…
• 26,000 sq. feet per custodial FTE to maintain at Level 2 standard
• If we followed the standard, our staffing level would be…• 158 total FTE for an average of 26,000 sq. feet per FTE custodian
• Our current custodial FTE in 2012…• 35,000 Sq. Feet per FTE Custodian [106 total custodians]
• Our recommendation to increase staff by 8 laborer FTEs, as explained on previous slide, targets floor work and detailing only, and will not affect assigned route sq. footage.
DRAFT
Custodial OE Strategies To-Date
1. Both divisions of UCSB custodial department are collaborating on purchasing.
This should save us money and allow for better efficiencies in purchasing. We are looking at all supplies including paper, cleaning chemicals and equipment.
2. Centralized pest control contracting
3. Collaborate on investigating state of the art equipment.
4. Collaborate on and attend different trade shows
DRAFT
Recommended Custodial OE Strategies① Improve PF Custodial Supervisory Ratio
• Reduce 50:1 custodial/supervisor ratio to 20:1 ratio over 3 years by increasing number of supervisors.
• Year 1: Add 2 Supervisor to achieve 30:1 ratio• Year 2: Add 1 Supervisor to achieve 25:1 ratio• Year 3: Add 1 Supervisor to achieve 20:1 ratio• [Estimated Cost for 4 Supervisors: $350,176]
Benefits:
a) Supervisory role provides greater management and oversight of custodians than Sr. Lead JD
b) Better oversight of workforce increases worker productivity
DRAFT
Cost Summary for Custodial Improvements
① Deep Cleaning Crew [8 FTE]: $550,416
② 4 Custodial Supervisors: $350,176
③ Bathroom Renovation Cycle: $780,000
④ Annual Window Cleaning: $125,000
• FY 2012-13 [Year 1] $1,630,504• FY 2013-14 [Year 2] $1,718,049• FY 2014-15 [Year 3 and forward] $1,805,594
DRAFT
MAINTENANCE
DRAFT
MAINTENANCEPlanning Group Objectives
1. Define Baseline Preventative Maintenance Level, along with new Goal Standard
2. Define Work Ticket Service Goal Standard, Service Response Tiers, and Maintenance Service Levels
3. Define Current and Ideal Deferred Maintenance Strategy
4. Identify Operational Effectiveness Strategies and Recommendations Moving Forward
DRAFT
Baseline Preventative Maintenance Level, along with new Goal Standard
Baseline: Conduct Preventative Maintenance work on an average 11 month cycle across 56 buildings
• Current PF PM staff: 4 HVAC + 1 BMW
Goal Standard: Work toward a 6 month average Preventative Maintenance cycle*
• Year 1: Add 2 HVAC + 2 Electricians + 2 BMWs • Tier PM cycles focusing on critical research buildings
Cost: $828,000/yr
• Year 2: Add 2 HVAC + 1 Electrician + 1 Plumber + 2 BMWs Cost: $828,000/yr
• Year 3: 1 HVAC + 1 Electrician + 1 BMW Cost: $414,000/yr
*currently – as building are added, staffing levels will be re-evaluated
In addition, we will evaluate partnering opportunities to take on additional PM requirements for new or existing buildings
DRAFT
Work Ticket Service Goal Standard and Service Response Tiers
Goal Standard:
Emergency Response: Immediate [Within the hour]
Non-Emergency*: 100% of initial contact made within 72 hours; strive for further reduction in time => 48hrs =>24hrs
Service Response Tiers:• Tier 1: Safety Issues; Health Issues; Security Issues;
Sensitive Labs; Dining Commons; Family Housing with Infants or Small Children; Plumbing Backups
• Tier 2: Air Quality; Noise; No Health or Safety Issue Posed.
• Tier 3: Preventative Maintenance
*Current level is 80%
DRAFT
Modified APPA Maintenance Service Levels
• Level 1: Showpiece Facility
• Level 2: Comprehensive Stewardship
• Level 3: Managed Care
• Level 4: Reactive Management
DRAFT
Deferred Maintenance Strategy
UCSB has a Deferred Maintenance backlog of $415 million
Current Strategy:
Leverage $1.5M annually into $1M – 3M annually. [HR&S has a separate Major Maintenance Budget - $3 million to $5 million annually]
APPA Recommended
APPA guidelines recommend 3% of CRV for Deferred Maintenance [$2.6B in CRV = $78M] vs. current plan of $3M
DRAFT
Deteriorating Roof
Old Piping Systems with Exposed Asbestos Insulation
Corroded HVAC Piping
Old HVAC Equipment
Corroded HVAC Air Intakes
Dilapidated Cooling Tower
Deteriorated Air Handler
UCSB’s Buildings by Age and Level of Renewal
General Maintenance
Moderate Renewal
Comprehensive Renewal
Building Replacement
Predicted Building System Life Cycle
Sub-System Life Cycle
Roofing 25 Years
Building Exteriors, Doors, Windows 30 Years
Elevators and Conveying Systems 25 Years
HVAC – Equipment/Controls 30 Years
HVAC – Distribution Systems 50 Years
Electrical Equipment 25 Years
Plumbing Fixtures 30 Years
Fire Protection Systems 40 Years
Interior Finishes: Walls, Floors, Doors 15 Years
Painting: Public Areas 15 Years
Pacific Partners Consulting Group
Facilities Infrastructure Renewal Model (PF) Backlog Renewal Funding
UCSB Deferred Maintenance (DM) Report by Subsystems (2012)
Subsystem Total Campus DM Percent of Total
Roofing $ 20,750,000 5 percentBuilding Exteriors, Doors, Windows $ 33,200,000 8 percentElevators and Conveying Systems $ 16,600,000 4 percentHVAC-Equipment/Controls $ 53,950,000 13 percentHVAC-Distribution Systems $ 12,450,000 3 percentElectrical—Equipment$ 74,700,000 18 percentPlumbing Fixtures $ 24,900,000 6 percentFire Protection $ 4,150,000 1 percentBuilt-in Equipment & Specialties $ 87,150,000 21 percentInterior Finishes: Walls, Floors, Doors $ 45,650,000 11 percentPainting—Public Areas $ 4,150,000 1 percentAll Renewal—Small Basic $ 20,750,000 5 percentAll Renewal—Small Complex $ 16,600,000 4 percent
Grand Total Backlog $415,000,000
DRAFT
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
CR
V (
in $
Mill
ion
s)
Current Replacement ValueState Supported Space Only
CRV $1,917 $2,471 $2,598
Santa Cruz Caltech Santa Barbara
DRAFT
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
DM
Ba
ck
log
(in
$M
illio
ns
)Deferred Maintenance Backlog
State Supported Space Only
Backlog $127 $200 $415
Santa Cruz Caltech Santa Barbara
DRAFT
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
Ex
pe
nd
itu
res
pe
r M
GS
F
Deferred MaintenanceState Supported Space Only
Deferred Maint $0.27 $0.50 $3.91
Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Caltech
Summary of Replacement and Renewal Needs
• Physical Facilities estimates the current Deferred Maintenance backlog is $415 million.
• Campus state building assets are estimated at $2.6* Billion ($700 per sq. ft.).
• Many of our buildings are in poor condition, adversely affecting campus programs and Physical Facilities’ maintenance operations.• Preventive maintenance is being preempted by “breakdown”
maintenance.• Old building systems use more energy and need more
maintenance.*APPA recommends 3% of CRV for Deferred Maintenance [$2.6B in CRV = $78M DM budget vs. our current DM budget of $1M or 1% of recommended amount]
Deferred Maintenance Recommendation
Proposed Strategy:
Increase Deferred Maintenance budget to $5 million annually
Benefits
1. Enables us to manage 4-10 major DM projects annually in-house (e.g., roof replacements, elevator replacement)
2. Reduce risks of significant mechanical or structural failures that could negatively impact critical research
3. Provides reliable and conducive research environment to ensure we attract and retain top faculty, and continue to maintain our status as a world-class research university
DRAFT
Deferred Maintenance Recommendation
Proposed Strategy:
Recommend a $20-30M Building Renewal Program within the 5-Year Capital Budget Plan
Rationale
1. Developing and funding a long-term renewal plan is vital to our campus operations.
2. Ensures a plan for long-term renewal of all major building components comprising the $415 million DM backlog
3. Failure to renew these building systems will compromise our research and academic missions.
DRAFT
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
① Recommend the creation of a Utilities & Infrastructure Group, which will:• Handle Metasys System and Building Automation (critical
for research/lab operations)• Have fundamental responsibility for the daily operations
and maintenance of campus-wide systems such as; Electrical distribution system, emergency generators*, outdoor lighting*,natural gas distribution, potable and reclaimed water distribution, chilled water loop, hot water loop, sewage systems
* Scope of partnership between H&RS and PF on shared management of generators, outdoor lighting, and communication infrastructure still in discussion
DRAFT
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
Benefits:• Increased system(s) reliability• Emergency Response Effectiveness• Long Range Planning• Regulatory Compliance• Improvement in staff morale by better defining their
roles and responsibilities and feeling of ownership
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
② Recommend the creation of a ‘Unified Campus System Services’ Function
Function could include:•Unified Work Management System & Analytics•Unified Security Systems Administration•Set-up & Monitor Preventative Maintenance Module
Benefits: •Simplifies point of contact for all campus customers•Easier to put in place one card system•Ensures unified database architecture and building codes•Maximizes security controls and monitoring
DRAFT
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
③ Recommend a phased approach to creating a ‘Unified Central Dispatch’ function
DRAFT
Phase I [2012-13 FY]1.Implement uniform training standards and set of operating
procedures to break down barriers and culture differences between operations
2.Adopt a common name ‘Operations Service Center’ with a Residential Unit and Academic Unit
3.Resolve space, infrastructure, staffing and management issues in moving toward a merged operation
Phase II [2013-14 FY]4.Merge Operations Service Center operations, pending resolution of
space, infrastructure, and staffing considerations
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
④ Recommend Co-Location of Following: • Paint Shop• Carpentry Shop• Life Safety
Benefits
1. Addresses regulatory and safety concerns through standard operating and training procedures
2. Promote consistency and provide opportunities for shared training
3. Eliminate duplication of common equipment and/or space
DRAFT
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
⑤ Recommend Shared Service Contracts For:• Elevators• Generators (internal)• Pools• Water conditioning/treatment• Window Cleaning
Already established:• Pest control (Effective 2/2012; Evaluate additional areas)
Benefits:• Achieve spend savings of 10% - 25% across each
contract
DRAFT
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
⑥ Recommend storeroom consolidation and unified purchasing
Benefits:• Common point of distribution for supplies• Bulk purchase benefits• Negotiated contracts with vendors• Optimize new Gateway purchasing system capabilities• Better inventory control and management• Better utilization of space
DRAFT
Cost Summary for Maintenance Improvements
① Enhanced PM Schedule: $855,380 by Year 3
② Deferred Maintenance Budget: $5M by Year 3
[Phased approach: $2.5M Y1; $4M Y2; $5M Y3]
• FY 2012-13 [Year 1] $2,794,784• FY 2013-14 [Year 2] $5,289,472• FY 2014-15 [Year 3 and forward] $5,855,380
DRAFT
Cost Summary for All Facilities Improvements• FY 2012-13 [Year 1] $5,446,820
• Renewal & Renovation Funding: $3,580,000• Increase in Operating Budget:
$1,866,820
• FY 2013-14 [Year 2] $7,762,364• Renewal & Renovation Funding: $5,080,000• Increase in Operating Budget:
$2,682,364
• FY 2014-15 [Year 3 and forward] $9,263,908• Renewal & Renovation Funding: $6,080,000• Increase in Operating Budget:
$3,183,908
• Projected Net Savings on Spend: ($300,000)• Permanent Bridge Fund Replacement: $1,100,000
Net Total Cost in Year 3 $10,063,908
DRAFT
Our Proposal in Perspective…
FINAL DRAFT
2002 2012 20150
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
SF Assigned Per Custodian
SF Assigned Per Cus-todian
2002 2012 20150
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
SF Assigned Per Trades Worker
SF Assigned Per Trades Worker
2002 2012 2015100
105
110
115
120
125
130
Custodial Workforce FTE
Custodial Workforce FTE
2002 2012 20150
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Trades Workforce FTE
Trades Workforce FTE