Condition Audits forGrounds Assets

TEFMA Grounds WorkshopBrisbane, May 2007

Steve Lake, Business Improvement ManagerRichard Phillips, Asset Protection Officer

Condition Audits for Grounds Assets

“If the surroundings of a university were beautiful, then the spirit of a university would be better than if the surroundings were merely utilitarian.”

Sir John Latham, 2 September 1935

External Drivers

NCRB, 1995• Acknowledged underspend on building maintenance across the tertiary education sector:

– Desirable level of maintenance: 1-1.5% ARV– Average University spend: 0.8% ARV– Actual spend at UoM in 2005: 0.8% ARV

Group of 8, 2005 • TEFMA Benchmark Comparisons

– Based on 5 year average (2000 – 2004)

Institution ANU Monash Adelaide UoM Sydney UNSW UQ UWA

% ARV 0.43 1.06 0.99 0.59 0.61 0.96 0.88 0.70

Internal DriversAUQA Audit Report 2005:

“…recommends that UoM develop a plan for addressing the deferred maintenance problems ……...”

The Corporate Strategy:• “…maintain the condition of the University’s property portfolio in line

with the Melbourne Experience.”• “…progressively renew physical infrastructure to support learning.” • “…an important aspect of the Melbourne Experience is the provision

of a safe, attractive campus with outstanding educational, social, cultural and recreational amenities.”

Operational Review 2005:

“…a long term plan to reduce the maintenance backlog…”

Backlog Maintenance Strategy

Definition:• “Maintenance that is necessary to prevent the deterioration of the

asset or its function but which has not been carried out.” (TEFMA)

Extent:• In 2005, the extent of the backlog was estimated at $203M.

Exclusions:– faculty equipment and room soft furnishings;– buildings less than 5 years of age;– buildings due to be demolished in the next 10 years;– normal items of routine maintenance; and– service upgrades.

The TEFMA Model

AAPPA Guidelines for Strategic Asset Management (2000)• Uniformat II Classification for Building Elements

• Rating Tables for:» Condition

» Risk

» Importance

» Functionality

• Facility Condition Index and Overall Rating System

• No classification system for Grounds

Project Plan

Stage 1: March – May 2006– Researched the TEFMA Community and Commercial models– Undertook a Pilot Study

Stage 2: May – March 2007– Train Internal Assessment Team– Undertake Assessment of Parkville Campus

Stage 3: January – December 2007– Produce a prioritised Backlog Maintenance Program– Conduct Stakeholder Consultation– Develop Long Term Program

Data Management

• Audit spreadsheets (Microsoft Excel) offer advantages when considering individual buildings / grounds zones but have limitations for campus wide data analysis.

• Considered BEIMS, Archibus and other proprietary tools.• Selected BEIMS as the preferred tool because:

– SQL Server database offers required functionality for data storage, analysis and reporting in the long term;

– we already use BEIMS for work order management; – Mercury Computer Systems were prepared to work with us in

developing a TEFMA-based Condition Audit module and data upload tools for our Audit spreadsheets; and

– control, custodianship, flexibility and value for money.

Early Wins!

• $61M Funding approved in May 2006:– commencing 2007– rising from $5M to $20M in 2011

• Support from Mercury Computer Systems to develop BEIMS Condition Audit module

• We could now focus on conducting a full audit of the Parkville campus

Funding 2007 - 2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Years

$ M

illio

ns

- M

ain

ten

an

ce

Sp

en

d

Backlog Maintenance

General Maintenance

$13.2M (+3% per year)

Funding for Maintenance in 2007

Safety and Emergency

9%Upgrade and Replacement

5%

Refurbishment15%

Statutory and Compliance

28%

Backlog23%

Routine and Discretionary

20%

Prioritisation Model

Condition and Appearance

Program of Works for 2007 – 2011 ($61 million)

Risk and Importance

Functionality

Total Estimated Backlog ($200+ Million)

Consultation

• Developed a 20 question Facility Condition Survey form.• Questions have been aligned to individual building and grounds

elements to facilitate comparison.• ~50 key stakeholders identified across all faculties to coordinate

surveys within their own buildings.• Currently establishing correlation between responses and

condition audit.• Developed 2 page Summary Plans for each Building / Grounds

Zone to facilitate effective communication with individual faculties.

Functionality Rating

Determination of Timing and Funding

• Consideration given to planned refurbishments, demolitions, etc. – reality check so that the outcome has maximum effect.

• Consideration given to changes in regulations and other strategic initiatives (i.e. energy and water conservation).

• Consideration of appropriate source of funding (i.e. Backlog Maintenance, Compliance, Discretionary, etc.)

Practical Assessment of strategic initiatives

Audit Progress - Buildings

Key Building Elements

Estimated Backlog

Maintenance Total

Structure 2,500,000$ Walls, W indows & Doors 4,257,100$ Roofing 3,050,200$ Interiors 5,689,100$ Lifts 14,046,700$ Plumbing 2,278,000$ HVAC 9,215,500$ BAS 4,178,200$ Fire Protection 2,246,000$ Electrical 960,500$ Equipment & Furnishings 195,000$ Special Construction & Demolit ion 3,564,000$

Tota l: 52,180,300$

Audit Progress - Buildings

Building NameBuilding Number

Estimated Backlog

Maintenance Tota l

Backlog Maintenance

Interior Appearance

Backlog Maintenance Structure &

Services

Overall Facility

ConditionW ilson Hall 151 2,155,335$ 199,900$ 1,955,435$ FairNatural Philosophy (Botany) 143 2,452,425$ 31,200$ 2,421,225$ FairBaldwin Spencer 113 2,611,660$ 84,000$ 2,527,660$ GoodChemistry East 154 1,507,653$ 549,300$ 958,353$ GoodJohn Medley (East & W est) 191 2,512,900$ 321,900$ 2,191,000$ GoodElisabeth Murdoch (Old Pathology) 134 1,421,030$ 27,700$ 1,393,330$ GoodOld Commerce 132 621,465$ 18,500$ 602,965$ GoodOld Geology 155 512,700$ 60,200$ 452,500$ GoodOld Geology South 156 351,800$ 14,800$ 337,000$ GoodUnion House 130 3,040,108$ 65,200$ 2,974,908$ GoodBabel Building 139 560,675$ 20,650$ 540,025$ GoodMcCoy Building 200 977,825$ 156,500$ 821,325$ GoodBaillieu Library 177 2,661,500$ 444,250$ 2,217,250$ GoodRedmond Barry 115 1,895,900$ 121,400$ 1,774,500$ GoodRichard Berry House 157 65,100$ 34,800$ 30,300$ GoodRaymond Priestley 152 921,520$ 13,000$ 908,520$ GoodOld Physics 128 318,700$ 23,700$ 295,000$ GoodRichard Berry 160 1,157,900$ 141,400$ 1,016,500$ GoodSports Centre 103 1,000,000$ 3,000$ 997,000$ Very GoodOld Arts 149 722,250$ 251,600$ 470,650$ Very GoodPhysics (New) 192 1,434,450$ 192,400$ 1,242,050$ Very GoodChemistry 153 1,395,200$ 702,300$ 692,900$ Very GoodOld Quad (Old Law) 150 633,450$ 183,300$ 450,150$ Very GoodArchitecture 133 552,800$ 92,300$ 460,500$ Very GoodSouth Car Park 195 11,800$ 9,800$ 2,000$ Very Good

Totals 31,496,146$ 3,763,100$ 27,733,046$

Colour Key: Very Good Good Fair Poor Demolish

Audit Progress - Grounds

Zone NameZone

Number Services Surfaces HorticultureFixtures & Structures Total

Tin A lley to Masson Rd. (NE Parkville) 1 29,000$ 29,250$ 8,455$ 45,800$ 112,505$

Masson Rd. to Monash Rd. (EC Parkville) 2 27,700$ 60,650$ 9,140$ 73,450$ 170,940$

Monash Rd. to Grattan St. (SE Parkville) 3 14,500$ 10,450$ 20,310$ 50,950$ 96,210$

Union Law n/Tin A lley/R.Barry (NC Parkville) 4 170,450$ 289,210$ 35,365$ 82,900$ 577,925$

Engineering Precinct (SC Parkville) 5 18,900$ 21,800$ 15,130$ 42,400$ 98,230$

Totals: $260,550 $411,360 $88,400 $295,500 $1,055,810

2007 Works Program

Category Budget % CommentsW ilson Hall 850,000$ 17% Full building refurbishment split 2007 and 2008.Baillieu Library 850,000$ 17% Full building refurbishment split 2007, 2008 and 2009.

Lift Strategy 1,800,000$ 36%Refurbishments to Architecture, Mech. Eng., Civil Eng. and Chemistry.

Building Services 500,000$ 10% Ten $50k projects based on highest priority.Grounds 1,000,000$ 20% Various Upgrade Projects (see below).

Total: 5,000,000$ 100%

Element Project 2007Fixtures Signage $ 250,000 Furniture Seats, Benches and Tables $ 100,000 Surfaces Paving $ 250,000 Services External Lighting $ 50,000 Horticulture Landscape Works $ 250,000 Furniture Bicycle Parking $ 50,000 Fixtures Waste Bins $ 50,000

Tota ls: $ 1,000,000

Grounds

Analysis and Reporting

• Using analysis and reporting functions within new BEIMS ‘Building Condition Assessment’ (BCA) module.

• Reports available (for Buildings):– by element and priority / condition within a specific building– by element and priority / condition across all buildings– by overall building condition or appearance– and by various combinations and selections

• A ‘Grounds Condition Assessment’ module has not been developed as yet.

Achievements Thus Far

• Established Assessment Team (internal staff + external contractors)

• Engaged Consultants for Specialist Assessment • Assessed ~70 Buildings and 10 Grounds Zones• Captured Routine Maintenance works• Developed Progress Reporting Tools• Developed new BEIMS ‘Building Condition Assessment’

module• Developed a Consultation Framework• Committed $2 million to date of 2007 Works Program

Grounds: In the Beginning….

Challenges:• Modification of the building classification system to suit our Grounds assets.• Undertaking Grounds Audits• Existing commitments and responsibilities

Issue:No existing audit classifications with a GROUNDS / LANDSCAPE Focus.

My Role:Grounds Planning Officer with non-audit responsibilities.

What are the Major Element Groups?

A. Services

B. Surfaces

C. Horticulture

D. Fixtures & Structures

E. Sports Precincts

Element Groups

A. Services– A10 Below Ground Services

• A1010 Water Reticulation• A1020 Stormwater / Drainage• Etc..

– A20 Above Ground Services• A2010 Lighting & Power• A2020 Security & Cameras• A2030 Fire Hydrants & Boxes• Etc….

Element Groups

B. Surfaces– B10 Road Surfaces

• B1010 Bitumen Road Surfaces• B1020 Unsealed Road Surfaces• Etc….

– B20 Kerb & Channel• B2010 Material• B2020 Crossovers

– B30 Pedestrian Walkways• B3010 Paved Surfaces• B3020 Gravel Surfaces • Etc….

Element Groups

C. Horticulture– C10 Grassed Areas

– C20 Garden Beds

– C30 Arboriculture

– C40 Water Features

– C50 Roof Gardens

– C60 Planters, Containers & Boxes

– C70 Wall Climbers & Creepers

– C80 Internal Courtyards

– C90 Mulches

– C100 Plant Labels

– C110 Hedges

Element Groups

D. Fixtures & Structures– D10 Furniture

– D20 Enclosures

– D30 Ornamental Features

– D40 Waste

– D50 Traffic Control

– D60 Structures

E. Sports Precincts– E10 Tracks

– E20 Courts

– Etc…

Grounds Zones

Grounds Sub-Areas

Condition Rating Table

Risk Rating Table

Works Costing

Using agreed values, in partnership with contractors, as a tool is prioritising works

– Area analysis / Works costings

– Utilising GIS/CAD plans for accuracy• $ per m

– Surfaces– Landscape

• $ per Zone (larger area)

Challenges

– Resource Management• Skill development

– Audit consistency and continuity for audit staff• Time Management

– Data entry and management– Developing, estimating and managing works

schedules• My role has now changed to Asset Protection Officer

– Underground Services Auditing!– Integrating the Identified Works into an Overall

Planning Regime

Summary

• The Condition Audit process sets out to:- identify projects- estimate costs- identify risks- provide a sense of priority

• Our Prioritisation Model is based on:- condition- appearance- risk- planned refurbishment works- and consultation with the Faculties.

• The Asset Protection Program is an ongoing process that will need to be funded over many years to address the ~$200M backlog.

Future Directions

• ‘Go Live’ with the BEIMS ‘Building Condition Assessment’ module;

• Continue to develop the ‘science’ behind our approach to Grounds classification and prioritisation;

• Develop a ‘Grounds Condition Assessment’ module for BEIMS in collaboration with Mercury Computer Systems and with input from the broader TEFMA community.