Date post: | 03-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | raghu-natha |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 52
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
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
2/52
Agenda
Maintenance Strategies
Projects, Benchmarks, and Funding
Emerging Issues
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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+
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
4/52
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
6/52
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
7/52 Sightlines 2010
Endowed campus cleaner than Contract Colleges
7
Campus Cleanliness ScoreEndowed Composite 4.5
Contract Colleges 4.2
Peers 4.3
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
8/52 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
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
9/52 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
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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).
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
12/52
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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.
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
15/52
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
16/52
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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.
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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.
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
22/52
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
23/52 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
$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
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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
Annual Investment Equilibrium, Target, and Actual Expenditures
Total spending compared to equilibrium and target need
24
FunctionalObsolescence Need
Equilibrium Need
Endowed
Campus
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
25/52
Sightlines 2010
Percent of target funded is quickly losing pace with peers
25
Nearly 50% decrease in FY09
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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
Annual Investment Equilibrium, Target, and Actual Expenditures
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%
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
27/52
Endowed Planned Maintenance Projects
funded and underway:
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
28/52
A.D. White House: EPDM
roof ripping off.
7 chimneys need
comprehensive repair or
rebuilding
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
29/52
Base of Sibley Dome:
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
30/52
Base of Sibley Dome:
114 patches visible in
this one photo alone
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
31/52
McGraw Hall:
Structural degradation from
leaking roof.
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
33/52
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
34/52
Sightlines 2010
Backlog currently below peer level
34
EndowedCampus
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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:
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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.
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
37/52
Probe Inside Wall of Room 350
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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:
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
39/52
Sage House:
Exterior Rot
West End: inner and3 old caulk lines track movement.
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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:
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
41/52
Rand Hall:
Structural failure throughout exterior
masonry. Open holes allowing water,
and accelerating deterioration.
S Ch l
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
42/52
Sage Chapel:
Masonry
deterioration.
Note bricks
heaved outward
1-2 allowing
water into the
wall assembly.
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
43/52
Jennie McGraw Tower:Roof is leaking. Note water running
down wood roof decking and ponding at base of steel structural support.
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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.
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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.
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
46/52
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
47/52
Malott Hall:
The limestone facade appears to be moving. The amount of play in theanchor system has resulted in this condition.
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
48/52
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
49/52
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
50/52
S
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
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
8/12/2019 B+P_Maintenance Strategies Update_17-June-10_FINAL
52/52