B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL

8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL

1/52

Facilities Services

Facilities Management

Maintenance PlanningFY 10-FY14

John Kiefer, Director

Facilities Management

James Gibbs, Director

Maintenance Management


2/52

Agenda

Maintenance Strategies

Projects, Benchmarks, and Funding

Emerging Issues


3/52

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 INOH

PA

NY

NC

VAWV

SC

KY

LA

MS ALGA

NDMT

SD

NMAZ

WY

UT

NE

MN

IA

MOKS

AR

DC

MD

NJ

RI

MA

NH

VT

CT

DE

HI

0 1-5 6-11 12-27 18-23 24+


4/52


5/52

Sightlines 2010

Density Factor

Increased density increases wear and tear and operational demands

5

Cornell User/100,000GSFPeers User/100,000GSF

SightlinesDistribution

Liberal ArtsInstitution

ComprehensiveUniversity

Urban / CityInstitution Community


6/52


7/52 Sightlines 2010

Endowed campus cleaner than Contract Colleges

7

Campus Cleanliness ScoreEndowed Composite 4.5

Contract Colleges 4.2

Peers 4.3



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



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


10/52

MAINTENANCE:

The activity to offset facilities deteriorationcaused 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).


11/52

Scheduled activity to extend life and increasereliability.

Inspections, lubrications, filters, etcPREVENTIVE

Scheduled projects which arrest deterioration orrestore facilities.

Roof replacements, equipment renewal, etcPLANNED

Unscheduled day-to-day repairs to restore iteminto operable condition.

Can be used as a barometer of the efficacy ofPreventive & Planned programs.

CORRECTIVE

The maintenance allocation is divided between three distinct types


12/52


13/52

Maintenance Management Tools

Building cost report Expenditures are captured by maintenance type, facility,

and system type

Maximo

Preventive maintenance scheduling and tracking Job plans and schedule review underway

Corrective maintenance work requests and tracking

Implementation of KPIs underway- response time, uniformapplication 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


14/52

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.


15/52


16/52


17/52

Maintenance needs prioritization

Individual projects are assigned a likelihood scoreand an impact score.

Likelihood scores range from 1 to 5 with 5 beingalmost certain.

Impact scores also range from 1 to 5 with 5 beingcatastrophic.

These two scores are multiplied to arrive at a riskscore.


18/52

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

MajorPotentially major 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 requiring non-routine activity; closing a floor orsection of a building; moderate financial consequences such as budget

reallocations or increased borrowing.

3

Minor Can be managed under routine activity; requires closing of a smallarea; handled within existing budgets. 2

Insignificant A failure not requiring a shutdown or closure; minor occupantdiscomfort; poor appearance; failure would have little financial

consequences.

1

Impact of loss or failure


19/52

Likelihood/Frequency of loss or failure

Level Definition Score

Almost certain Extremely likely to occur (at least once a year). Failure or dealingwith the situation a daily consideration.

5

Likely Likely to occur, has occurred previously and could reasonably occuragain. Failure or dealing with the situation a monthly consideration.

4

Periodic Periodically has occurred in the past. Failure or dealing with thesituation a consideration in 1-2 years.

3

Unlikely Has happened in the past. Failure or dealing with the situation aconsideration in 3-5 years.

2

Rare Extremely rare or has not occurred in the past. Requires attention in

5-10 years.

1


20/52

Planned Maintenance funding benchmarks

Whitestone Research

Stanford Predictive Model

Ohio State Life-cycle ModelBuilding 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 currentreplacement value

20


21/52

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.


22/52



$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

$inMillions

Departmental and Capital Funds Planned and Preventative Maintenance

Annual Investment Equilibrium, Target, and Actual Expenditures

Total spending compared to equilibrium and target need

23

FunctionalObsolescence Need

Equilibrium Need

Contract

Colleges


24/52

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

$inMillions

Departmental and Capital Funds Planned and Preventative Maintenance


Total spending compared to equilibrium and target need

24

FunctionalObsolescence Need

Equilibrium Need

Endowed

Campus


25/52

Sightlines 2010

Percent of target funded is quickly losing pace with peers

25

Nearly 50% decrease in FY09


26/52

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 09Functional

Obsol. Need

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

$in

Millions

Space/Program Envelope/Mech

Target Need


FY04-FY09 actual spending declines by 47%

EndowedCampus

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%


27/52

Endowed Planned Maintenance Projects

funded and underway:


28/52

A.D. White House: EPDM

roof ripping off.

7 chimneys need

comprehensive repair or

rebuilding


29/52

Base of Sibley Dome:


30/52

Base of Sibley Dome:

114 patches visible in

this one photo alone


31/52

McGraw Hall:

Structural degradation from

leaking roof.


32/52

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: $2.3MFY10 YTD One-Time Capital total: $17.3M (excluding new space investment)FY11 Planned Maintenance: $6.4M; Capital Funds: $12.7MFY12 Planned Maintenance: $6.1M; Capital Funds: $11.7MFY13 Planned Maintenance: $5.6M; Capital Funds: $11.5MFY14 Planned Maintenance: $8.5M; Capital Funds: $12.0MFY15 Planned Maintenance: $8.3M; Capital Funds: $14.5MPreventative Maintenance inflated at 2% per year from FY10 LevelsCapital Funds amounts exclude new space investment

Scenario # 1

EndowedCampus


33/52


34/52

Sightlines 2010

Backlog currently below peer level

34

EndowedCampus


35/52

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:


36/52

Elevation

Enlarged

Section

CORNE

R PIER

1

ADJACENT

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.


37/52

Probe Inside Wall of Room 350


38/52

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:


39/52

Sage House:

Exterior Rot

West End: inner and3 old caulk lines track movement.


40/52

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.

Mortar used to

close the gap,

but it continuesto open further

Rand Hall:


41/52

Rand Hall:

Structural failure throughout exterior

masonry. Open holes allowing water,

and accelerating deterioration.

S Ch l


42/52

Sage Chapel:

Masonry

deterioration.

Note bricks

heaved outward

1-2 allowing

water into the

wall assembly.


43/52

Jennie McGraw Tower:Roof is leaking. Note water running

down wood roof decking and ponding at base of steel structural support.


44/52

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.


45/52

Big Red Barn:

In 2007 a temporary

structural

stabilization projectbought us 5 years.

The walls and sill

plates continue to rot.

Olin Library: exterior stone faade has failed, allowing water intrusion.


46/52


47/52

Malott Hall:

The limestone facade appears to be moving. The amount of play in theanchor system has resulted in this condition.


48/52


49/52


50/52

S


51/52

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


52/52

B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL

Documents