Space Optimization & Asset Management Tinker Air Force Base - Asset Management Division

Ms. Geri Hart, P.E.

Chief of the Asset Management Division

72nd Air Base Wing

U.S. Air Force

Tinker AFB, OK

Introduction

This presentation brings into focus what Asset Management (AM) means, specifically at the base

level. Tinker AFB has been working AM issues for over a year and has been a participant in the

Space Optimization transformation effort. You’ll get a sneak peak at our future capabilities and it

is pretty exciting stuff.

The presentation includes a summary of the recommendations for the M-6 (Space Optimization)

transformation initiative. The goal of this initiative was to provide specific recommendations to

improve the space and occupancy process so that the AF can achieve reductions in space and

subsequently, in resources spent on federal facilities. It’s packed full of examples and shows

step-by-step how the recommended space standards were derived and how using them will

enable us to achieve the 20% reduction by 2020 goal. It also includes a demonstration of how

the future IT systems will enable these key space optimization findings.

Current Asset Management solutions

Currently Real Property (RP) and Space & Occupancy(S&O) data are handled in various ways.

ACES-RP, which is being replaced, has been the system for handling Real Property information.

This information is compliance driven and is reported to the Office of Secretary of Defense

(OSD). In the past, Space & Occupancy data have been handled in spreadsheets and in

Geographical Information Systems (GIS). We have adopted and enforced various space

standards at our installations, but we really haven’t had the tools to inventory and manage these

built assets.

An Integrated Workplace Management System (IWMS) Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS)

solution is used by many corporations to merge the critical information about built assets to

include costs, space & occupancy information and real property data. IWMS systems act as a

repository of information for an organization’s facilities and costs in a web environment,

allowing managers to sustain data related to a facility or asset.

The enthusiasm for these systems go beyond Civil Engineering and extends to facility managers

who benefit from the IWMS system data that allows you to drill down into CAD drawings, view

critical financial projections and view occupancy data. The strengths of these systems are

transparency of data that can be rolled up to an installation level.

Why is Asset Management critical?

At an installation there are continuous changes occurring. We have never had the capability to

link directly to CAD files and at the same time view Installation Geospatial Information &

Services (IGI&S) map data. When a floor plan changes or a physical asset is moved, some users

don’t notify CE and therefore our data are continuously stale. Imagine a tool that allows

managers, space managers, CE personnel, to view and analyze building and space from an

individual facility, installation wide or AF wide.

For example, a manager can look at integrated CAD, IGI&S, and facility data in the same view.

The facilities can be viewed in a dashboard like the picture below that shows which facilities are

using the most energy (BTU/GSF). This type of information will allow program managers to

target those facilities that may be underperforming to address the “worst first” and prioritize

upgrades.

What Assets do we have?

The ACES-RP data include inventory and attribute data for our built assets, structures and land

parcels. This database contains information about the number, type, location, age, size (GSF),

plant replacement value, restrictions, category codes or usage, and other information. These data

are generally aggregated at the facility level and at the current time are not generally available

for viewing in a visual tool. The category codes are the foundation for the use of the asset. The

screenshot on the following page shows the category codes overlaid in a CAD environment, for a

hangar at Tinker AFB.

Space and Occupancy

The M-6 project objectives included a review of space allocation standards and guides (AFH 32-

1084, BOMA/ANSI), processes, techniques and tools that could help inventory and optimize AF

space utilization. S&O process standardization is key to ensure a standardized comparison of

assets across the enterprise.

Air Force Bases use a range of techniques and methodologies to assign and track space and

occupancy in AF facilities. Generally, AFH 32-1084 has been the reference document for space

standards which have been broadly interpreted in an operational environment. Space surveys

utilize in-house and contracted personnel to inspect facilities. In most cases the data resides in a

notebook computer or is entered into a geospatial system. However, without web-enabled tools

that make the information transparent and visible to our customers, data sustainment is very

difficult. Because there is no standard methodology for proration of shared space or common

space, quantifying square footage assigned to each occupant is a challenge. The private sector

tracks rentable and useable square feet per occupant. This is one metric recommended by the

M-6 team. Another standard adopted by AF will allow 230 rentable square feet per person and

200 useable square feet per person. These numbers fall in line with GSA portfolio averages.

The example on the following page shows occupancy by organization and measures rentable

square feet per person. By comparing building level administrative space data, building

utilization can be displayed as a red/yellow/green metric.

How will we standardize space classification across the AF?

AF space classification, as defined by DOD, will still be tied to category codes. In addition,

space will be classified at the room level by industry adopted space classification codes or Open

Standards Consortium for Real Estate (OSCRE) categories. The OSCRE, in conjunction with

industry and government representatives, has developed a standard set of space classifications

that align with Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and International Facility

Management Association (IFMA) Floor Area Measurement Standards. OSCRE space

classification standards will allow an accurate comparison of space types across the portfolio.

The diagram below illustrates how the BOMA/OSCRE space standards are integrated.

The most commonly used method used for data collection in an IWMS system requires that each

room be assigned a classification. Another benefit of applying OSCRE space classification

standards is that embedded space types become more clearly defined. In this example, as we

apply OSCRE standards, we more clearly define room usage. This is important in identifying

embedded support space which will be used to define future revision to the programming

documents (AFH 32-1084), and in determining space standards for special use space such as

maintenance areas or warehouses. Because the OSCRE standards have been written from a

broad perspective and are integrated with the BOMA measurement standards, the level of effort

for defining this embedded space is relatively straight forward. This will allow enterprise space

assessments and requirements to be an apples-to-apples comparison and allow benchmarking

with similar private sector operations.

The building below shows the OSCRE standards applied to the space.

Building Performance

If someone asked you how much we are investing in our facilities, could you answer their

question? A recommendation of the M-6 project was to include a Key Performance Indicator

(KPI) for our facilities operating costs (e.g., utilities, custodial, sustainment, etc) per square foot.

The building “cost to operate” model is based on the eleven costs of accounting used by the

private sector. The primary difference is that some components are not applicable to federal

agencies (e.g., taxes, insurance, etc). This “cost to operate” model is key as it will allow us to

benchmark against private sector costs and determine underperforming assets. The example on

the following page shows the cost of occupancy for three types of facilities.

The cost performance of a facility can also be rolled up with the space and occupancy data to

determine how well a building is performing. For the facility below, you can see a roll up of

building cost data as well as building occupancy data. These data coupled with the backlogged

maintenance information can provide a clear picture of the overall health of the facility.

Additionally, with the emphasis on utilities, it is possible to review the monthly utilities of a

building alongside facility operating costs to determine if adjustments should be made in facility

operations. For instance, in the example on the following page the facility primary use is

hangar. The utilities for October were unusually high relative to other hangars on base and

should trigger a review by facility managers to check on potential causes. Perhaps doors were

left open or if there were additional aircraft moved in/out of the hangar during that time period.

These cost data are critical to understanding our assets and managing costs.

Conclusion

To improve decision-making regarding built assets, and to improve the day-to-day management

of our portfolio, it is important to establish and track key performance indicators such as those

shown below. To measure aspects about our assets such as cost to operate and space utilization,

performance indicators are key. At the highest level, the goal of every base is to promote asset

management goals and initiatives.