Facilities Services

Facilities Management
Maintenance Planning
FY 10-FY14
J ohn Kiefer, Director
Facilities Management
J ames Gibbs, Director
Maintenance Management
Agenda
Maintenance Strategies
Projects, Benchmarks, and Funding
Emerging Issues
50+ professionals serving institutions in over 30 states
3
Common vocabulary
Consistent analytical methodology
Credibility through benchmarking
Over 250 Campuses
Evenly Split between Public and Private
7 State Systems
Database of over 750M GSF
Established in 2001
Developed a tool based on
ID
WA
OR
CA
NV
CO
TX
OK
MI
WI
TN
AK
FL
ME
IL
IN
OH
PA
NY
NC
VA
WV
SC
KY
LA
MS AL
GA
ND MT
SD
NM
AZ
WY
UT
NE
MN
IA
MO
KS
AR
DC
MD
NJ
RI
MA
NH
VT
CT
DE
HI
0 1-5 6-11 12-27 18-23 24+
Technical complexity and relative building size compared to peers
4
Peer Institutions
Boston College
Brown University
Carnegie Mellon University
Dartmouth College
Duke University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Northwestern University
Princeton University
The Johns Hopkins University
The Pennsylvania State University
University of Michigan
University of Notre Dame
University of Pennsylvania
Sightlines 2010
Density Factor
Increased density increases wear and tear and operational demands
5
Cornell User/100,000GSF Peers User/100,000GSF
S
i
g
h
t
l
i
n
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
Liberal Arts
Institution
Comprehensive
University
Urban / City
Institution Community
Sightlines 2010
Composite perspective of Cornell University grounds
6
Campus Grounds Score
Cornell University 3.9
Peers 4.1
Sightlines 2010
Endowed campus cleaner than Contract Colleges
7
Campus Cleanliness Score
Endowed Composite 4.5
Contract Colleges 4.2
Peers 4.3
Sightlines 2010
Shops being sized to support maintenance activities
8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Sightlines 2010
Endowed considerably younger than Contract Colleges
9
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 50+
Endowed Contract Colleges
MAINTENANCE:
The activity to offset facilities deterioration
caused by the elements and by wear and
tear.
MAINTENANCE is NOT:
- Installation of systems or building
elements that do not already exist
(for example adding air conditioning).
- Modifications for change of space use
(program changes).
Scheduled activity to extend life and increase
reliability.
Inspections, lubrications, filters, etc
PREVENTIVE
Scheduled projects which arrest deterioration or
restore facilities.
Roof replacements, equipment renewal, etc
PLANNED
Unscheduled day-to-day repairs to restore item
into operable condition.
Can be used as a barometer of the efficacy of
Preventive & Planned programs.
CORRECTIVE
The maintenance allocation is divided between three distinct types
Planned Maintenance
Scheduled projects to restore or
renew building systems
Deferred projects are those that are
delayed beyond cost/benefit balance
Does not address programmatic
upgrades or addition of new systems
Maintenance Management Tools
Building cost report
Expenditures are captured by maintenance type, facility,
and system type
Maximo
Preventive maintenance scheduling and tracking
J ob plans and schedule review underway
Corrective maintenance work requests and tracking
Implementation of KPIs underway- response time, uniform
application of labor etc.
Facilities assessment process and database (FPNMS)
Conversion from legacy Filemaker system complete
Consider functionality in addition to condition
New database allows easier tracking and forecasting
Planned Maintenance needs identification
Deficiencies are added to the list based on:
Building assessments,
Corrective maintenance requests,
Facilities users and support staff discussions,
Life safety system inspections,
Unit-driven planning efforts.
Maintenance needs prioritization
Individual projects are assigned a likelihood score
and an impact score.
Likelihood scores range from 1 to 5 with 5 being
almost certain.
Impact scores also range from 1 to 5 with 5 being
catastrophic.
These two scores are multiplied to arrive at a risk
score.
Level Definition Score
Catastrophic
Imminent or certain life safety risk; large area may require shutdown;
long recovery time; severe financial consequences; compromise
institutions image.
5
Major
Potentiallymajor safety risk; significant failure requiring a building
or system shutdown with a long recovery period; major financial
consequences; financial hardship for the institution.
4
Moderate
A significant failure requiringnon-routine activity; closing a floor or
section of a building; moderate financial consequences such as budget
reallocations or increased borrowing.
3
Minor
Can be managed under routineactivity; requires closing of a small
area; handled within existing budgets.
2
Insignificant
A failure not requiring a shutdown or closure; minor occupant
discomfort; poor appearance; failure would have little financial
consequences.
1
Impact of loss or failure
Likelihood/Frequency of loss or failure
Level Definition Score
Almost certain
Extremely likelyto occur (at least once a year). Failure or dealing
with the situation a daily consideration.
5
Likely
Likely to occur, has occurred previously and could reasonably occur
again. Failure or dealing with the situation a monthly consideration.
4
Periodic
Periodically has occurredin the past. Failure or dealing with the
situation a consideration in 1-2 years.
3
Unlikely
Has happened in the past. Failure or dealing with the situation a
consideration in 3-5 years.
2
Rare
Extremely rare or has not occurred in the past. Requires attention in
5-10 years.
1
Planned Maintenance funding benchmarks
Whitestone Research
Stanford Predictive Model
Ohio State Life-cycle Model
Building Research Board
Sightlines
APPAs Buildings The Gifts
That Keep on Taking
Suggested funding levels*
1.2% - 2.6%
1.5% - 2.6%
2.2% - 3.8%
2% - 4%
1.5% - 3%
1.1% - 1.8%
* percent of current
replacement value
20
The current replacement value of the Ithaca
Campus is approximately $5 Billion.
If we are to maintain functional facilities in perpetuity, we
must reinvest at the rate of 1.5% -3% per year.
Sightlines 2010
$14.8
$14.1 $14.6
$12.9
$9.1
$42.5 $40.9
$47.6 $46.1
$66.9
$0.0
$10.0
$20.0
$30.0
$40.0
$50.0
$60.0
$70.0
$80.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
$

i
n

M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Departmental and Capital Funds Planned and Preventative Maintenance
Annual Investment Equilibrium, Target, and Actual Expenditures
Total spending compared to equilibrium and target need
22
Functional
Obsolescence Need
Equilibrium Need
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e

-
C
o
r
n
e
l
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Sightlines 2010
$2.8 $2.4
$2.9
$2.1 $2.1
$28.1 $32.3
$27.8 $26.5
$37.9
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
$40.0
$45.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
$

i
n

M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Departmental and Capital Funds Planned and Preventative Maintenance
Annual Investment Equilibrium, Target, and Actual Expenditures
Total spending compared to equilibrium and target need
23
Functional
Obsolescence Need
Equilibrium Need
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t

C
o
l
l
e
g
e
s
Sightlines 2010
$12.1 $11.7 $11.7
$10.8
$7.0 $7.1
$14.3
$8.6
$19.8
$19.6
$29.0
$17.4
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
$40.0
$45.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
$

i
n

M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Departmental and Capital Funds Planned and Preventative Maintenance
Annual Investment Equilibrium, Target, and Actual Expenditures
Total spending compared to equilibrium and target need
24
Functional
Obsolescence Need
Equilibrium Need
E
n
d
o
w
e
d

C
a
m
p
u
s
Sightlines 2010
Percent of target funded is quickly losing pace with peers
25
Nearly 50% decrease in FY09
Sightlines 2010
$15.1
$12.7
$11.3
$11.0 $10.8
$10.3
$6.6 $6.6
$11.7
$0.4
$0.8 $0.7 $1.0
$0.9
$0.4
$0.4
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
FY 09
Functional
Obsol. Need
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
$

i
n

M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Space/Program Envelope/Mech
Target Need
Annual Investment Equilibrium, Target, and Actual Expenditures
FY04-FY09 actual spending declines by 47%
E
n
d
o
w
e
d

C
a
m
p
u
s
Total $ $26.8 M $13.1M $12.1M $11.7M $11.8M $11.2M $7.0M $7.0M Average
% of target N/A 64% 58% 55% 52% 48% 25% 25% 50%
Endowed Planned Maintenance Projects
funded and underway:
A.D. White House: EPDM
roof ripping off.
7 chimneys need
comprehensive repair or
rebuilding
Morrill & McGraw: entrances are
crumbling. Structural, single-piece
treads delaminated & unsupported have
the potential to collapse in.
Base of Sibley Dome:
114 patches visible in
this one photo alone
McGraw Hall:
Structural degradation from
leaking roof.
Sightlines 2010
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
$40.0
$45.0
$50.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Preventative and Planned Maintenance Departmental and Capital Funds Investment Target Total $
Assumptions:
FY10 Planned Maintenance: $4.8M; Preventative Maintenance: $2.3M
FY10 YTD One-Time Capital total: $17.3M (excluding new space investment)
FY11 Planned Maintenance: $6.4M; Capital Funds: $12.7M
FY12 Planned Maintenance: $6.1M; Capital Funds: $11.7M
FY13 Planned Maintenance: $5.6M; Capital Funds: $11.5M
FY14 Planned Maintenance: $8.5M; Capital Funds: $12.0M
FY15 Planned Maintenance: $8.3M; Capital Funds: $14.5M
Preventative Maintenance inflated at 2% per year from FY10 Levels
Capital Funds amounts exclude new space investment
Scenario # 1
E
n
d
o
w
e
d

C
a
m
p
u
s
Sightlines 2010
Under scenario # 1 backlog grows 27% by 2015
33
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Maint/Repair Modernization Infrastructure Deterioration Factor
E
n
d
o
w
e
d

C
a
m
p
u
s
$
/
G
S
F
Asset Reinvestment Backlog Over Time
Sightlines 2010
Backlog currently below peer level
34
E
n
d
o
w
e
d

C
a
m
p
u
s
What does it mean for our buildings?
There is a growing backlog of life safety and envelope problems
Deterioration is increasingly visible
Water infiltration increasing damage, especially to timber frame structures
Following are examples of projects we are unable to fund:
Elevation
Enlarged
Section
CORNE
R PIER
1
ADJ ACENT
WALL PIER
2
McGraw Hall:
Masonry degradation is allowing many areas
of the structural stone faade to buckle and
shift. Critical roof replacement work had to
be postponed to summer 11 to study the
severity of the structural weakness.
Probe Inside Wall of Room 350
Sage House:
Lack of painting the exterior wood elements, and a leaking slate roof at end of its life, have both
contributed to severe, systemic rot.
Sage House:
Exterior Rot
Sibley Hall has a multitude of serious structural issues
West End: inner and
outer wythes of masonry
are delaminating.
Exterior wythe has
shifted out several
inches, and is unstable.
Interior floor framing
relies on this wall for
support.
3 old caulk lines track movement.
Mortar used to
close the gap,
but it continues
to open further
Rand Hall:
Structural failure throughout exterior
masonry. Open holes allowing water,
and accelerating deterioration.
Sage Chapel:
Masonry
deterioration.
Note bricks
heaved outward
1-2 allowing
water into the
wall assembly.
Jennie McGraw Tower: Roof is leaking. Note water running
down wood roof decking and ponding at base of steel structural support.
Schoellkopf Crescent Rehabilitation:
Currently holding on start of phase 5.
-Clay roof tiles leaking
-Concrete/steel seating deterioration
-Column replacement
-Concrete coating (to protect work)
-Failure to continue places the recent
repairs in jeopardy of deterioration.
Big Red Barn:
In 2007 a temporary
structural
stabilization project
bought us 5 years.
The walls and sill
plates continue to rot.
Olin Library: exterior stone faade has failed, allowing water intrusion.
Malott Hall:
The limestone facade appears to be moving. The amount of play in the
anchor system has resulted in this condition.
Emerging Issues
Electronic obsolescence
Average age of endowed buildings
Integrated facility planning
Summary
Increasing use of data to optimize
preventive and corrective maintenance
A significant increase in planned
maintenance spending is needed to stabilize
deferred maintenance
Integrated facility planning is an opportunity
to optimize facilities spending
An open
invitation
Maintenance Management
extends an open offer to tour
any, or all, of these projects
for a first hand look and in-
depth discussion.