Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

CAMPUS FACILITIES OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS FINAL DRAFT FOR JUNE 6TH, 2012 PREPARED BY: CAMPUS FACILITIES PLANNING GROUP PREPARED FOR: FACILITIES ADVISORY.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "CAMPUS FACILITIES OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS FINAL DRAFT FOR JUNE 6TH, 2012 PREPARED BY: CAMPUS FACILITIES PLANNING GROUP PREPARED FOR: FACILITIES ADVISORY."— Presentation transcript:

1 CAMPUS FACILITIES OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS FINAL DRAFT FOR JUNE 6TH, 2012 PREPARED BY: CAMPUS FACILITIES PLANNING GROUP PREPARED FOR: FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT

2 March 20 th & April 19 th, 2012 CFPG held two planning retreats to develop several organizational models that merge or co-locate functions to streamline and improve service delivery May 21 st, 2012 CFPG provides debrief to FAC on scenarios under consideration FAC provides feedback to refine scope of recommendations, benefits/cons to evaluate, as well as questions to address June 4 th, 2012 Final CFPG planning retreat to finalize recommendations June 6 th, 2012 CFPG shares finalized recommendations, targeted benefits, as well as timeline for implementation FAC provides feedback to fine-tune recommendations June 7th, 2012 Marc and Willie present preliminary recommendations, endorsed by FAC, to OE Project Leaders & Committee Chairs Timeline & Key Milestones We Are Here

3 Setting the Stage DRAFT

4 GROUNDS DRAFT

5 GROUNDS Planning Group Objectives 1. Adopt a shared standard and metric for all of grounds 2. Define Tier System of Service Levels & Service Goals 3. Identify Operational Effectiveness Strategies To- Date and Recommendations Moving Forward DRAFT

6 Adopt a shared standard and metric Modified APPA Grounds Service Level Standards Level 1 Highest quality maintenance applied to diverse landscape. High visibility areas. Priority tiered according to highest volume of traffic. [Includes 3 Tiers of service quality] Level 2 Moderate level of maintenance associated with well developed public areas and residence halls. Recommended level for most areas. Level 3 Natural areas that are not developed (e.g., wetlands, reserves, unirrigated, fire abatement mowing) DRAFT

7 Define Service Level Tiers 1. Identified 3 Service Levels & Tiers for Maintained Acreage 1. Level 1 : Highest quality maintenance [~ 45% of total acreage] 3 Tiers of Service within Level 1 [See next slide] 2. Level 2 : Moderate level of maintenance [~ 50% of total acreage] Around Residence Halls; Campus Buildings 3. Level 3 : Natural area that is not developed [~ 5% of total acreage] Lagoon Road; Rear of Marine Lab DRAFT

8 Samples of Service Standards in Grounds DRAFT Level 1 Tier 1 Level 1 Tier 2 Level 1 Tier 3 Level 1 Highest quality maintenance areas on campus Tier 1 – High visibility/High traffic – Channel Island 5; Manzanita; Henley Gate; DLG Commons; University Plaza; North/South Corridor; Library Mall; Harder Stadium; Womens Softball; Baseball Stadium Tier 2 – Moderate visibility/moderate traffic – San Rafael Res Hall; Santa Catalina; Chase Park; Creative Studies; Library Lawn Tier 3 – Lower visibility/low traffic – Marine biology; Commencement Green; Faculty Club; University Plaza Circle; Santa Ynez

9 Samples of Service Standards in Grounds DRAFT Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 – Moderate quality maintenance areas with moderate visibility and traffic Examples – All other campus apartments; El Dorado; West Gate; Storke Apts.; Rudy House; Fenita House; El Colegio road median; East Bluffs; Student Health Lawn; Bottom of arts building; Parking Lot 11; Military Science area; EH&S; Facilities Grounds Level 3 – Natural area that is not developed

10 Grounds OE Strategies To-Date 1. Redistribute acreage between departments to optimize grounds staff productivity 2. Combine Pest Control Contract, in partnership with Purchasing, to realize over 25% savings annually (~ $50K total) 3. FM and H&RS get diesel fuel at FM grounds yard 4. Both Grounds units collaborate on areas of Campus high priority areas like the Commencement Green or Campus Entrances 5. Both Grounds departments share equipment as needed (Planning to start sharing shop equipment repair facilities as needed) 6. Both Grounds departments have been available to assist each other with labor as needed on projects or emergencies DRAFT

11 Recommended Strategies to Improve Grounds Appearance Identified Service Level Goals 1. For Level 1 Baseline : Increase from 45% to 50% of Maintained Acreage [e.g., Academic green; Pardall Corridor; Library Mall; Bus Loop] 2. For Level 2 Baseline : Decrease from 50% to 45% of Maintained Acreage Recommended Strategies 1. Additional equipment investment for mechanized sweeping 2. Converting backpack blowing to sweeper reduces need to add additional staff and has environmental advantages 3. Increase in field supervision by adding Grounds Supervisor FTE 4. Establish an annual landscape renewal fund DRAFT

12 Benefits 1. Saving of 1.5 FTE by transitioning from 16 backpack blowers requiring 90 man hrs/week to Sweeper Operator for 34 acres of plaza space and walkways FTE would be freed up to focus on landscape maintenance and improvements 3. Dramatically reduce operation of backpack blowers, which use a highly polluting 2-cycle gas/oil blend to operate 4. Dramatic reduction in airborne dust particulates 5. New Sweeper could be either high-efficiency Tier 3 Diesel or Electric, a vast environmental improvement over blowers DRAFT

13 Recommended Grounds OE Strategies Adopt Campus Landscape & Design Guidelines Benefits: a) Create a consistent and visually unified landscape b) Reduce repetitive injuries and unsafe maintenance situations c) Reduce watering d) Reduce maintenance time DRAFT

14 Recommended Grounds OE Strategies Operate as Gaucho Grounds, a Unified Grounds Department with Two Divisions How? a) Conduct shared training programs and events b) Hold shared BBQ/Social Events c) Establish Monthly Managers Forum to share best practices and align management and supervisory approaches. Key Focus: Collaborate on Major Maintenance decisions Partner on Grounds Deferred Maintenance Projects DRAFT

15 Recommended Grounds OE Strategies Mechanizing the grounds maintenance workflow to improve efficiency How? a) Formalize sequencing of edging, mowing and pavement sweeping b) Reduce outside refuse cans c) Explore shift change from 5am to 6am DRAFT

16 Cost Summary for Grounds Improvements Sweeper Purchase Cost: $100,000 Annual Sweeper Maintenance:$10,000 Grounds Supervisor:$78,316 Annual Landscape Renewal Fund:$300,000 Represents a $300 per acre annual spend FY [Year 1]$488,316 FY [Year 2 and forward]$388,316 Net increase in FTE: 2.5, by including 1.5 FTE redeployment from backpack blowing to landscape maintenance and improvements DRAFT

17 CUSTODIAL & HOUSEKEEPING DRAFT

18 CUSTODIAL Planning Group Objectives 1. Adopt a shared standard and metric for all Custodial/Housekeeping Services 2. Define Baseline Service Levels & Service Goals 3. Identify Operational Effectiveness Strategies To- Date and Recommendations Moving Forward DRAFT

19 Adopt a shared standard and metric APPA Custodial/Housekeeping Appearance Rating Level 1 – Orderly Spotlessness Level 2 – Ordinary Tidiness Level 3 – Moderate wear and tear Level 4 –Extreme wear and tear DRAFT

20 Defining Baseline Appearance Rating 1. At UCSB, We Range Between Level 2 and Level 4 1. Level 2 : Ordinary Tidiness Residential Hallways and Bathrooms Student Health & Child Care Facilities* New Buildings 2. Level 3 : Moderate wear and tear Older Buildings 3. Level 4 : Extreme wear and tear Oldest Buildings in Disrepair; Slated for Demolition *Should be maintained at Level 1 DRAFT

21 Level 4 Sample – Extreme Wear & Tear

22 Improving Academic Space Appearance Standards 1. Bathroom Appearance Improvements Goal: Level 1 & 2* For Physical Facility maintained bathrooms, would require a renewal cycle/schedule Bathrooms – Propose a renewal/remodel cycle for older bathrooms [3% of 526 bathrooms renewed on an annual cycle; $50,000 per bathroom] [Total Estimated Annual Cost: $780,000] Recommend adopting a unified restroom materials and surfaces palette to ensure durability and ease of cleaning Baseline: Ranges between Level 2 and 4, depending on building condition *Areas tiered as Level 1 would include: Student Health, Child Care Facilities, Rec Center, and Library; Remaining PF- maintained buildings would be maintained at Level 2 standard DRAFT

23 Improving Academic Space Appearance Standards 2. Deep Cleaning Improvements a) Utility Crew Deep Cleaning Areas Carpets – Annual deep clean Lab Floors – Annual deep clean [scrubbing & cleaning] Hallway Floor Work – Light scrub/recoat 1x/a year; Full strip every 10 yrs Classrooms & Lecture Halls – Add quarterly detailing service Adding 8 laborers For maintaining first floor bathrooms at goal standard, and carrying out deep cleaning [Estimated Cost: 8 laborer FTE = $550,416] b) Windows – 24 month cycle [Estimated cost: $125,000 annually] DRAFT

24 Recommended Staff Increase in Relation to APPA Standards APPA recommends… 26,000 sq. feet per custodial FTE to maintain at Level 2 standard If we followed the standard, our staffing level would be… 158 total FTE for an average of 26,000 sq. feet per FTE custodian Our current custodial FTE in 2012… 35,000 Sq. Feet per FTE Custodian [106 total custodians] Our recommendation to increase staff by 8 laborer FTEs, as explained on previous slide, targets floor work and detailing only, and will not affect assigned route sq. footage. DRAFT

25 Custodial OE Strategies To-Date 1. Both divisions of UCSB custodial department are collaborating on purchasing. This should save us money and allow for better efficiencies in purchasing. We are looking at all supplies including paper, cleaning chemicals and equipment. 2. Centralized pest control contracting 3. Collaborate on investigating state of the art equipment. 4. Collaborate on and attend different trade shows DRAFT

26 Recommended Custodial OE Strategies Improve PF Custodial Supervisory Ratio Reduce 50:1 custodial/supervisor ratio to 20:1 ratio over 3 years by increasing number of supervisors. Year 1: Add 2 Supervisor to achieve 30:1 ratio Year 2: Add 1 Supervisor to achieve 25:1 ratio Year 3: Add 1 Supervisor to achieve 20:1 ratio [Estimated Cost for 4 Supervisors: $350,176] Benefits: a) Supervisory role provides greater management and oversight of custodians than Sr. Lead JD b) Better oversight of workforce increases worker productivity DRAFT

27 Cost Summary for Custodial Improvements Deep Cleaning Crew [8 FTE]:$550,416 4 Custodial Supervisors:$350,176 Bathroom Renovation Cycle: $780,000 Annual Window Cleaning:$125,000 FY [Year 1]$1,630,504 FY [Year 2]$1,718,049 FY [Year 3 and forward]$1,805,594 DRAFT

28 MAINTENANCE DRAFT

29 MAINTENANCE Planning Group Objectives 1. Define Baseline Preventative Maintenance Level, along with new Goal Standard 2. Define Work Ticket Service Goal Standard, Service Response Tiers, and Maintenance Service Levels 3. Define Current and Ideal Deferred Maintenance Strategy 4. Identify Operational Effectiveness Strategies and Recommendations Moving Forward DRAFT

30 Baseline Preventative Maintenance Level, along with new Goal Standard Baseline: Conduct Preventative Maintenance work on an average 11 month cycle across 56 buildings Current PF PM staff: 4 HVAC + 1 BMW Goal Standard: Work toward a 6 month average Preventative Maintenance cycle* Year 1: Add 2 HVAC + 2 Electricians + 2 BMWs Tier PM cycles focusing on critical research buildings Cost: $828,000/yr Year 2: Add 2 HVAC + 1 Electrician + 1 Plumber + 2 BMWs Cost: $828,000/yr Year 3: 1 HVAC + 1 Electrician + 1 BMW Cost: $414,000/yr *currently – as building are added, staffing levels will be re-evaluated In addition, we will evaluate partnering opportunities to take on additional PM requirements for new or existing buildings DRAFT

31 Work Ticket Service Goal Standard and Service Response Tiers Goal Standard: Emergency Response: Immediate [Within the hour] Non-Emergency*: 100% of initial contact made within 72 hours; strive for further reduction in time => 48hrs =>24hrs Service Response Tiers: Tier 1: Safety Issues; Health Issues; Security Issues; Sensitive Labs; Dining Commons; Family Housing with Infants or Small Children; Plumbing Backups Tier 2: Air Quality; Noise; No Health or Safety Issue Posed. Tier 3: Preventative Maintenance *Current level is 80% DRAFT

32 Modified APPA Maintenance Service Levels Level 1: Showpiece Facility Level 2: Comprehensive Stewardship Level 3: Managed Care Level 4: Reactive Management DRAFT

33 Deferred Maintenance Strategy UCSB has a Deferred Maintenance backlog of $415 million Current Strategy: Leverage $1.5M annually into $1M – 3M annually. [HR&S has a separate Major Maintenance Budget - $3 million to $5 million annually] APPA Recommended APPA guidelines recommend 3% of CRV for Deferred Maintenance [$2.6B in CRV = $78M] vs. current plan of $3M DRAFT

34 Deteriorating Roof

35 Old Piping Systems with Exposed Asbestos Insulation

36 Corroded HVAC Piping

37 Old HVAC Equipment

38 Corroded HVAC Air Intakes

39 Dilapidated Cooling Tower

40 Deteriorated Air Handler

41 UCSBs Buildings by Age and Level of Renewal General Maintenance Moderate Renewal Comprehensive Renewal Building Replacement

42 Predicted Building System Life Cycle Sub-SystemLife Cycle Roofing25 Years Building Exteriors, Doors, Windows30 Years Elevators and Conveying Systems25 Years HVAC – Equipment/Controls30 Years HVAC – Distribution Systems50 Years Electrical Equipment25 Years Plumbing Fixtures30 Years Fire Protection Systems40 Years Interior Finishes: Walls, Floors, Doors15 Years Painting: Public Areas15 Years Pacific Partners Consulting Group

43 Facilities Infrastructure Renewal Model (PF) Backlog Renewal Funding UCSB Deferred Maintenance (DM) Report by Subsystems (2012) SubsystemTotal Campus DMPercent of Total Roofing$ 20,750,000 5 percent Building Exteriors, Doors, Windows$ 33,200,000 8 percent Elevators and Conveying Systems$ 16,600,000 4 percent HVAC-Equipment/Controls$ 53,950,00013 percent HVAC-Distribution Systems$ 12,450,000 3 percent ElectricalEquipment$ 74,700,00018 percent Plumbing Fixtures$ 24,900,000 6 percent Fire Protection$ 4,150,000 1 percent Built-in Equipment & Specialties$ 87,150,00021 percent Interior Finishes: Walls, Floors, Doors$ 45,650,00011 percent PaintingPublic Areas$ 4,150,000 1 percent All RenewalSmall Basic$ 20,750,000 5 percent All RenewalSmall Complex$ 16,600,000 4 percent Grand Total Backlog$415,000,000

44 DRAFT

45

46

47 Summary of Replacement and Renewal Needs Physical Facilities estimates the current Deferred Maintenance backlog is $415 million. Campus state building assets are estimated at $2.6* Billion ($700 per sq. ft.). Many of our buildings are in poor condition, adversely affecting campus programs and Physical Facilities maintenance operations. Preventive maintenance is being preempted by breakdown maintenance. Old building systems use more energy and need more maintenance. *APPA recommends 3% of CRV for Deferred Maintenance [$2.6B in CRV = $78M DM budget vs. our current DM budget of $1M or 1% of recommended amount]

48 Deferred Maintenance Recommendation Proposed Strategy: Increase Deferred Maintenance budget to $5 million annually Benefits 1. Enables us to manage 4-10 major DM projects annually in-house (e.g., roof replacements, elevator replacement) 2. Reduce risks of significant mechanical or structural failures that could negatively impact critical research 3. Provides reliable and conducive research environment to ensure we attract and retain top faculty, and continue to maintain our status as a world-class research university DRAFT

49 Deferred Maintenance Recommendation Proposed Strategy: Recommend a $20-30M Building Renewal Program within the 5-Year Capital Budget Plan Rationale 1. Developing and funding a long-term renewal plan is vital to our campus operations. 2. Ensures a plan for long-term renewal of all major building components comprising the $415 million DM backlog 3. Failure to renew these building systems will compromise our research and academic missions. DRAFT

50 Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies Recommend the creation of a Utilities & Infrastructure Group, which will: Handle Metasys System and Building Automation (critical for research/lab operations) Have fundamental responsibility for the daily operations and maintenance of campus-wide systems such as; Electrical distribution system, emergency generators*, outdoor lighting*,natural gas distribution, potable and reclaimed water distribution, chilled water loop, hot water loop, sewage systems * Scope of partnership between H&RS and PF on shared management of generators, outdoor lighting, and communication infrastructure still in discussion DRAFT

51 Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies Benefits: Increased system(s) reliability Emergency Response Effectiveness Long Range Planning Regulatory Compliance Improvement in staff morale by better defining their roles and responsibilities and feeling of ownership

52 Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies Recommend the creation of a Unified Campus System Services Function Function could include: Unified Work Management System & Analytics Unified Security Systems Administration Set-up & Monitor Preventative Maintenance Module Benefits: Simplifies point of contact for all campus customers Easier to put in place one card system Ensures unified database architecture and building codes Maximizes security controls and monitoring DRAFT

53 Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies Recommend a phased approach to creating a Unified Central Dispatch function DRAFT Phase I [ FY] 1.Implement uniform training standards and set of operating procedures to break down barriers and culture differences between operations 2.Adopt a common name Operations Service Center with a Residential Unit and Academic Unit 3.Resolve space, infrastructure, staffing and management issues in moving toward a merged operation Phase II [ FY] 1.Merge Operations Service Center operations, pending resolution of space, infrastructure, and staffing considerations

54 Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies Recommend Co-Location of Following: Paint Shop Carpentry Shop Life Safety Benefits 1. Addresses regulatory and safety concerns through standard operating and training procedures 2. Promote consistency and provide opportunities for shared training 3. Eliminate duplication of common equipment and/or space DRAFT

55 Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies Recommend Shared Service Contracts For: Elevators Generators (internal) Pools Water conditioning/treatment Window Cleaning Already established: Pest control (Effective 2/2012; Evaluate additional areas) Benefits: Achieve spend savings of 10% - 25% across each contract DRAFT

56 Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies Recommend storeroom consolidation and unified purchasing Benefits: Common point of distribution for supplies Bulk purchase benefits Negotiated contracts with vendors Optimize new Gateway purchasing system capabilities Better inventory control and management Better utilization of space DRAFT

57 Cost Summary for Maintenance Improvements Enhanced PM Schedule: $855,380 by Year 3 Deferred Maintenance Budget:$5M by Year 3 [Phased approach: $2.5M Y1; $4M Y2; $5M Y3] FY [Year 1]$2,794,784 FY [Year 2]$5,289,472 FY [Year 3 and forward]$5,855,380 DRAFT

58 Cost Summary for All Facilities Improvements FY [Year 1]$5,446,820 Renewal & Renovation Funding: $3,580,000 Increase in Operating Budget: $1,866,820 FY [Year 2]$7,762,364 Renewal & Renovation Funding: $5,080,000 Increase in Operating Budget: $2,682,364 FY [Year 3 and forward]$9,263,908 Renewal & Renovation Funding: $6,080,000 Increase in Operating Budget: $3,183,908 Projected Net Savings on Spend: ($300,000) Permanent Bridge Fund Replacement:$1,100,000 Net Total Cost in Year 3 $10,063,908 DRAFT

59 Our Proposal in Perspective… FINAL DRAFT


Download ppt "CAMPUS FACILITIES OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS FINAL DRAFT FOR JUNE 6TH, 2012 PREPARED BY: CAMPUS FACILITIES PLANNING GROUP PREPARED FOR: FACILITIES ADVISORY."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google