2012-2013 Annual Report Facilities Condition Assessment Program NC STATE UNIVERSITY Jack Colby - Assistant Vice Chancellor for Facilities Operations David Hatch - Director, Repair and Renovation Services Kevin Ingalls - Program Manager, FCAP Scott Crowder - Electrical Systems Inspector, FCAP Kevin Cummings - Architectural Systems Analyst, FCAP Joe Riley - Mechanical and Plumbing Systems Inspector, FCAP
28
Embed
2012-2013 Annual Report Facilities Condition Assessment Program · PDF file · 2015-06-032012-2013 Annual Report Facilities Condition Assessment Program ... The team collaborated
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
2012-2013 Annual Report Facilities Condition Assessment Program
NC STATE UNIVERSITY
Jack Colby - Assistant Vice Chancellor for Facilities Operations David Hatch - Director, Repair and Renovation Services Kevin Ingalls - Program Manager, FCAP Scott Crowder - Electrical Systems Inspector, FCAP Kevin Cummings - Architectural Systems Analyst, FCAP Joe Riley - Mechanical and Plumbing Systems Inspector, FCAP
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 2
This page is intentionally left blank
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 3
Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 4
The Year in Review ............................................................................................................................. 5
2012-2013 Data Summary Table by Building ....................................................................................... 18
Assessment Status Maps ................................................................................................................ 23
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 4
Executive Summary Although the university owns property across the state, NCSU FCAP’s focus is limited to state-appropriated and certain combination-funded buildings located on the core campus (Main, Centennial, and Centennial Biomedical Campuses). Athletic, residential, and other self-liquidating Campus Enterprise facilities are addressed by request. The program’s main goal is to identify needs in terms of capital renewal, deferred maintenance, and plant adaptation as mandated by code. Corrective projects and cost projections are then developed to address the identified deficiencies, and are assigned priorities based on the urgency of need. This work facilitates long-term planning for repair and replacement of major equipment and building systems. This year, the program has achieved its five-year goal of surveying all core campus buildings, eliminating previous reliance on projected/extrapolated costs. The 2013 Core Campus
Facility Condition Index According to the National Association of College and University Business Officers in “Managing the Facilities Portfolio”, the Facilities Condition Index (FCI) has become an industry standard tool by which facility conditions are measured and compared. The FCI represents a ratio of projected Capital Renewal (CR) and Deferred Maintenance (DM) costs to the current replacement value (CRV) of the facility (FCI = CR+DM /CRV). NCSU FCAP also reports the Facilities Condition Quality Index (FCQI), which includes Capital Renewal, Deferred Maintenance, and code-mandated Plant Adaptation (PA).
The FCQI is considered a better indicator of actual real-world conditions, and is used throughout the remainder of this report to indicate the “total deferred maintenance backlog”.
• Total backlog (CR+DM+PA) = $362,944,432 • Backlog/CRV = .12 • Per APPA, the Core Campus is in poor condition.
Under .05 = Good Condition
.05 to.10 = Fair Condition Over .10 = Poor Condition
Findings
• 53.7% of the total costs are represented by the top two system categories alone. These costs also represent a larger percentage of total costs than last year.
• More than two-thirds of identified deficiencies are in systems critical to the mission of the university.
The Year in Review 2012-2013 FCAP Goals • Survey all state-appropriated facilities, reduce reliance on extrapolation • Develop a mission-critical priority-based assessment cycle • Publish an annual report summarizing activities, findings, recommendations • Continue ongoing training for full-time team members • Improve program efficiency to lower PSF cost of each assessment • Streamline format of FCAP reports to speed publication of findings • Update and improve the quality of information in the ISES database • Review and adapt procedures to ensure best use of limited resources • Identify smaller-scale projects in lieu of comprehensive renovations • Identify potential energy-saving upgrades, providing initial cost and payback • Utilize ISES data for R&R and Six-Year Capital Planning • Participate in additional activities as requested 2012-2013 FCAP Achievements • All state-appropriated and select combination-funded facilities are assessed • A priority-based assessment cycle has been established • This report is the fifth in the series of FCAP Annual Reports • Training classes are available through Community Colleges, APPA, and on-line sources • Short-form assessment templates for low priority buildings are completed within hours • Volume of completed assessments indicates 4% gain in productivity over last year’s effort • ISES data is reconciled with AERES and other data streams quarterly • Specific tasks and job responsibility assignments rotate through the team to ensure cross-training
The FCAP team has again participated in additional activities beyond its core mission this year, supporting the University’s commitment to sustainability and reduced energy consumption by specifically creating projects for the R&R Shops to implement. Conditions are documented where T12 lighting could be upgraded to T8 or LED, or where common areas and informal lounge/study areas could be equipped with light sensors to turn off lighting fixtures during times of abundant daylight. Cost savings and payback schedules are projected. The team collaborated with the R&R Projects Group over the past summer to manage several construction and renovation projects, reducing the need for temporary hires. Scott Crowder, a licensed electrician since 2012, is a member of the Campus Electrical Safety Committee. Construction warranty issues are managed by the FCAP team. Warranty expiration dates are tracked on major projects and 90-day alerts are issued to Project Managers. The web-hosted RoofManager® database has been enriched with updated drawings, photographs, and current warranty status of approximately 100 campus buildings’ roof installations. An expanded menu of attributes identifies candidates for urethane coating projects, suitability for supporting solar arrays, and the need for fall protection. Customized reporting capabilities allow more meaningful reports targeting roof replacement projects over time. The outdated Design Review process has been revamped to become the online Facilities Operations Portal, affording campus stakeholders greater access to review, discuss, and document the development of construction documents and specifications. The FCAP team assisted Real Estate, OUA, and CPM staff with the proposed purchase and renovation of 3501 Avent Ferry Road, a former fraternity house that could provide much-needed swing space for displaced university personnel.
Lighting retrofit project at MEAS Field Labs
Former Fraternity House 3501 Avent Ferry Road
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 6
2013-2014 FCAP Goals • Implement priority-based assessment cycle • Aging assessments will be updated to keep data current • Partner with ISES and other resources for latest product releases • Support SCO and other UNC campus assessment programs • Assist Utility Infrastructure Planning with Asset Inventory • Continue to innovate and improve internal processes • Migrate existing data to new platforms as warranted • Publish findings and projects to S: drive to facilitate access • Publish an annual report • Participate in additional activities as requested The Core Campus In last year’s report, the Core Campus included 313 buildings. Through demolition, relocation/reassignment, and new construction, there are 292 buildings this year. The detail is as follows: The addition of the three new buildings, 783A – Hunt Library, 430 – Arboretum greenhouse, and 174B – Method Road greenhouse, brings the total to 294. The merging of David Clark Labs (075) and the David Clark Addition (075A) under one number, (075), brought the total number of buildings to 292.
These buildings were demolished in 2012 and were removed from campus inventory
327 - CVM Warehouse
337 - Bird House Raptor Center-CVM
456 - Greenhouse UFL 456
455 - Greenhouse UFL 455
495 - Grinding Facility UFL 495
603 - Crop Science Storage UFL
611 - Storage Bldg. UFL 611
614 - Entomology Lab UFL 614
616 - Storage Bldg. UFL 616
604 - Soil Science Storage UFL 64
605 - Plant Pathology Storage UFL
631 - Poultry Bldg. UFL 631
These buildings were moved to outlying areas or had ownership transferred to another state entity
134C - Bull Barn RPRL-CVM
324 - CVM Chemical Storage Bldg.
328 - Leonard Storage Bldg. CVM
329 - Leonard Storage Bldg. CVM
329D - Leonard Storage Bldg. CVM
329E - Leonard Storage Bldg. CVM
331A - Leonard Storage Bldg. CVM
331B - Leonard Storage Bldg. CVM
331C - Leonard Storage Bldg. CVM
387 - Facilities Equipment Storage
157Z - Olympic Trailer Unit
These twelve demolitions reduced overall campus building total to 301
These further eleven reductions brought the building total to 290
Current Replacement Value (CRV) In prior years, CRV data had been drawn exclusively from the AERES database, developed jointly by NCDOI and UNC-GA; these values were found to vary by as much as 15% from current market rates. Last year, we developed a cost model determined by building type, and again this year has used that model, adjusted for inflation as of Monday, September 16, 2013.
Fan coil unit in disrepair at Early College High School
Crumbling concrete awning at Gardner Hall Brick veneer out of plane at Riddick Hall
Failed breaker at Carmichael Gym
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 8
2012-2013 Findings Costs by System in Assessed Buildings Each assessment inventories the deficiencies in the following building systems, with remediation projects proposed for each, shown here ranked per their highest to lowest portion of total costs. Nearly 67% of identified deficiencies are in building systems that are critical to the mission of the University.
Inefficient window A/C units at Gardner Hall
HVAC Systems $120,481,090 33.2%Electrical Systems $74,473,149 20.5%Exterior Finishes $50,518,501 13.9%Interior Finishes $45,574,419 12.6%Plumbing Systems $24,269,333 6.7%Fire/Life Safety $24,054,152 6.6%Accessibility $10,696,592 2.9%Health $8,754,911 2.4%Vertical Transportation $3,262,673 0.9%Site $859,613 0.2%Totals $362,944,433 100.0%
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 9
Priority Classes Priority 1: Critical (0 to 1 Year)
Projects in this category require immediate action. Usually, a work order is generated immediately. • Correct a cited safety hazard and/or return a facility to normal operation • Halt accelerated deterioration • Building energy-related repairs (controls, lighting, IAQ) • In-depth inspections of HVAC, electrical services, Accessibility reviews
Priority 2: Potentially Critical (1 to 3 Years)
Projects in this category, if not corrected, will become critical within 1 to 3 years. • Intermittent power interruptions • Accelerated deterioration of roof membrane and/or equipment • Potential safety hazards
Priority 3: Not Yet Critical (3 to 5 Years)
Projects in this category require appropriate attention to preclude potential downtime and associated damage and/or higher costs if deferred further. • Storm water intrusion at windows, doors, and joints • Advanced deterioration of structural elements • Roof repair
Priority 4: Recommended (5 to 10 Years)
Projects in this category include sensible improvement to existing conditions or replacement of equipment nearing the end of its anticipated service life. These items will improve overall usability and/or reduce long-term maintenance costs. • Roof replacement • Large-scale renovation
Graph 2: System Code by Priority Class
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
Systems
System Code by Priority Class Graph for Surveyed Buildings
Priority Class 1: Critical
Priority Class 2: 1-3 Yrs
Priority Class 3: 3-5 Yrs
Priority Class 4: 5-10 Yrs
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 10
Project Classes Capital Renewal: refers to major repairs or the replacement and/or rebuilding of major facility components based upon effective service life (anticipated life cycle) e.g., roof replacement at the end of its normal useful life is capital renewal; roof replacement several years beyond the end of its effective service life is deferred maintenance. The routine replacement of aging/obsolete equipment/material accounts for nearly half of all probable costs. Deferred Maintenance: Refers to expenditures for repairs which were not accomplished as a part of normal maintenance or capital renewal, and which have accumulated to the point that facility deterioration is evident and could impair the proper functioning of the facility. Cost estimates for deferred maintenance projects should include compliance with current applicable codes, even if such compliance requires expenditures beyond those essential to affect the needed repairs. Plant Adaptation: Refers to expenditures required to adapt the facility to the evolving needs of the institution and/or to changing codes or standards. Examples include compliance with changing codes (ADA, NCBC, NCEC), facility alterations required by changing teaching or research methods, improvements to accompany the adoption of modern technology (telecommunications), and energy-efficiency improvements as mandated by the NCSU administration or the State of North Carolina. Routine Maintenance: Refers to the day-to-day efforts to control deterioration of facilities through scheduled repetitive activities (e.g., cleaning), periodic scheduled work (e.g., inspections, equipment adjustments, filter replacement, painting) and minor repairs that are performed on an as-needed basis. This type of work is not addressed in FCAP reports unless routine maintenance cycles appear to be insufficient or inadequate. Work Orders are created in the AiM work management system, or conditions are noted for future funding.
Graph 3: Project Class by Priority Class for Surveyed Buildings
Project Class by Priority Class for Surveyed Buildings
Capital Renewal
DeferredMaintenance
Plant Adaption
Project Classes
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 11
CR+DM+PA by System Charts The following charts show project costs classified as Capital Renewal, Deferred Maintenance, or Plant Adaptation as aggregate totals per system for all surveyed buildings.
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 12
Graph 5: System Code by Project Class Totals
$-
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
System Code by Project Class Totals
Capital Renewal
Deferred Maintenance
Plant Adaption
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 13
Assessment Priority The FCAP database now includes assessments of all state-appropriated campus buildings. Going forward, the program will shift from its earlier data gathering phase to data management, and older reports will be replaced as the second and third rounds of assessments are conducted; a new assessment cycle has been developed to guide this work. In priority-based assessments, buildings are classified by purpose (classroom, laboratory, administrative), square footage, and CRV, to determine which are the most mission-critical.
• Buildings with higher FCI’s and higher priority scores will be assessed early in the cycle:
Building Number and Name FCI Priority 011 Brooks Hall 0.3847 50.78 024 Poe Hall 0.3005 41.51 067A Bostian Hall 0.3719 33.47 048 Hillsborough Building 0.3870 31.34 038 Daniels Hall 0.2459 29.50 054 Dabney Hall 0.2450 29.40 040 Mann Hall 0.2377 28.52 023 Winston Hall 0.2809 28.49 01A Kamphoefner Hall 0.2608 25.82 025 Caldwell Hall 0.2448 24.82 070 Phytotron 0.2394 21.54 117 D.S. Weaver Laboratories 0.2566 20.53 055 Cox Hall 0.2155 19.39
• Buildings with lower FCI’s and lower priority scores will be assessed later in the cycle:
Building Number and Name FCI Priority 106 Clark Hall 0.0347 2.29 720C EGRC Constructed Facilities Lab 0.0166 1.50 058A Jordan Addition 0.0166 1.49 043 Withers Hall 0.0125 1.24 782B EB II 0.0081 .98 036 1911 Building 0.0121 .65 712 Toxicology Building 0.0061 .55 008 Peele Hall 0.0138 .50 132 Joyner Visitor Center 0.0060 .48 128 Butler Communications 0.0165 .45 126 Fleet Services Facility 0.0075 .31 029 Yarbrough Steam Plant 0.0148 .24 086 Cates Avenue Steam Plant 0.0096 .23 076 Marye Anne Fox Science Teaching Lab 0.0005 .06 713 Partners III 0.0004 .03
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 14
2010-2013 Campus Data Summary Table The table below illustrates the rate at which the FCAP group has worked to complete assessments on all 292 buildings, as indicated by steadily increasing gross square footage totals and replacement values associated with surveyed buildings. Notice as well the growing numbers associated with deferred maintenance costs; these indicators have increased more than 41.1 million dollars in the last three years alone, a clear indicator that the University’s deferred maintenance needs are far outpacing both the State’s ability to fund these needs, as well as facility replacement values. Campus-wide FCI will continue to rise in the absence of sustained and predictable maintenance funding, as will be discussed in the following pages. Graphs are provided to project the possible outcomes of alternate funding models.
Yarbrough Steam Plant Roof
313 313 292Fiscal Years 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013GSF 7,777,736 7,823,678 8,061,365Surveyed Buildings GSF 6,980,464 7,087,029 8,061,365CRV 2,478,325,898$ 2,718,252,284$ 2,916,140,145$ Surveyed Buildings CRV 2,267,051,758$ 2,503,960,158$ 2,916,140,145$ Total Maintenance Backlog Costs 294,328,792$ 305,356,165$ 362,944,432$ FCQI Surveyed Buildings 0.130 0.122 0.124Maintenance Backlog Cost per SF 42$ 43$ 45$ Maintenance Backlog % of CRV 11.81% 11.09% 12.45%Total Estimated DM Costs 321,758,277$ 331,488,938$ 362,944,432$ Infrastructure Costs 72,774,151$ 72,774,151$ 72,774,151$ Grand Total 394,532,428$ 404,263,090$ 435,718,583$
292 State-Appropriated Only
Number of Buildings
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 15
Funding History and Projection Modeling Graph 6 compares APPA’s recommended reinvestment rate (approximately 3% of CRV) to the funding received by the NC State Facilities Division during the time period 2003-2013. The current process for obtaining funding produces the erratic pattern on the graph (green), and makes it difficult to plan effectively for future needs of the campus. The upper line (red) illustrates a pattern that steadily increases maintenance funding along with growth in the size and value of the campus, keeping pace with backlog growth and effectively controlling the FCI of campus assets at a favorable level while precluding further accumulation of a deferred maintenance backlog. Repair and Renovation funding for fiscal 2012-2013 is $12,900,000. The average Repair and Renovation funding obtained by NC State through 2003-2013 is $9,485,277.
Graph 6: APPA Recommended Funding vs. Actual Funding 2003-2013
State appropriated OnlyRecommended Funding & Actual Funding
APPA Recommended Funding @ 3%Reinvestment Rate
Appropriated Annual R&R Funding
10 year average = $9.5 Mill / per yr
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 16
Model 1 illustrates the effect of the 10-year average funding on campus maintenance backlog and FCI over a 20 year period. If the average funding is maintained, the backlog will grow and the FCI will rise. If the 10-Year Average Funding Level is maintained for the next 20 years, by 2033 the backlog will rise to $1,384,156,248 and the campus-wide FCI will be .250.
Model 1: Campus Condition Over 20 Years at Average Funding Level
Campus Condition Index Over 20 Years At Average Funding Level From 2002-2013
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
2012-2013 FCAP Annual Report 17
Model 2 shows the recommended funding to reduce the campus FCI to within industry standards from .12 (poor condition) to .09 (fair condition) over a twenty year period. This model represents a gradual increase in reinvestment in five year divisions beginning with 1.9% of CRV and steadily increasing to the recommended standard of at least 3.0% of CRV.
Model 2: Funding Required to Reduce FCI Over 20 Years