CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
January 15, 2015

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
 Capital Improvement Planning overall methodology
 The FY 2015 CIP process and resulting project commitments
 Request for new projects and project approval protocol
Capital Improvement Plan – a program that establishes a short-range (5 year) plan , updated annually, identifying specific projects to be developed with a schedule (ranked) and costs with options for financing, providing link between the
Strategic Academic Plan, Facility Needs Assessment, Facility
Condition Assessment and the Capital Budget .
Capital Improvement Plans are common industry practice for municipalities and universities of significant size.
2

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Every 3 years 1/3 of the campus is surveyed and its physical deficiencies are documented. A value equal to the cost to repair/cost to replace (the FCI or Facilities Condition
Index ) is determined. The FCI provides a “snapshot” of the building’s condition.
 The CIP was presented to the UH System Board of Regents in
May 2014. The Board charged facilities staff with the annual goal of improving the institution’s overall FCI , and using this as a metric in their progress card to monitor progress. The CIP is presented annually to the Board of Regents in May.
 The goal of the implementation of the CIP is to move the 5
‐ year
FCIN from poor condition to fair (FCIN between 5% and 10%) condition by 2017, by appropriately investing resources in the institution’s facilities and infrastructure.
3

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
A
Bldg. No.
B
Building Name
C D
Gross Area FCIN
E
Deferred
Maintenance
Project Cost**(4Q
2015 $)
F
Other Renovtn
$/SF Per THECB
G
Total Other
Renovation Cost
H
Total Project Renewal
Cost Fall 2012-2015
Dollars***
1
CATEGORY I -- NEW CONSTRUCTION / REPLACE IN PLACE
2 0800.1
Campus Infrastructure--Cougar Substn.
3 0800.3
Campus Infrastructure--Chilled Str Distr.
4 0800.2
Campus Infrastructure--Electrical Distr.
5 TOTAL
0 60.0%
0 50.0%
0 50.0%
0
$ 21,833,020
$ 7,115,623
$ 5,988,260
$ -
$ -
$ -
TOTAL
$ 21,833,020
$ 7,115,623
$ 5,988,260
$ 34,936,903
6
7 0502
8 0501
9 0587
10 0564
11 0580
12 0550
13 0588
14 0578
15
CATEGORY II -- REHABILITATE OR REPAIR
Science Building
Roy G. Cullen
Stephen Power Farish Hall
Lamar Fleming, Jr.
Engineering Lecture Hall
Science and Research 1
Charles F. McElhinney Hall
Agnes Arnold Hall
TOTAL
127,800
54,079
126,147
117,155
5,152
214,496
70,564
162,347
749,940
39.5%
56.3%
43.1%
44.2%
49.4%
35.3%
37.7%
34.6%
N/A
$ 7,390,591
$ 28,495,699
$ 17,899,872
$ 1,163,800
$ 28,719,470
$ 3,498,481
$ 14,740,296
$ 412
$ 195
$ 195
$ 438
$ 195
$ 438
$ 195
$ 195
$ 52,653,600
$ 10,545,374
$ 24,598,665
$ 51,313,890
$ 1,004,640
$ 93,949,248
$ 13,759,980
$ 31,657,665
TOTAL
$ 52,653,600
$ 17,935,965
$ 53,094,364
$ 69,213,762
$ 2,168,440
$ 122,668,718
$ 17,258,461
$ 46,397,961
$ 381,391,271
 Identified and categorized projects (escalated to 4Q 2015):

$17.9 M, Priority 1 Life/Safety Critical
 $223.4 M, Priorities 1-3 (0-5 years) Immediate
 $355 M, Priorities 1-5 (10 years) All
4

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
 The major 2015 project identified by FCA is the expansion of the
Cougar Substation, without which we could not have guaranteed reliable power to future buildings or to existing research projects.
 A second significant project is the renovation of 8 legacy building in the campus core: buildings which support liberal arts and STEM programs and provide numerous general purpose classrooms to the community.
 Major non-capital projects were also identified for action/improvement: these included numerous projects affecting life safety, academic program operation and accreditation, student wellbeing and security, and emergency operations.
5

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
 Facilities Users
Online Space Needs
Assessment
 Capital Project
Planning Form and
Evaluation (Ongoing)
6

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
 Campus Master Plan –
A land use, housing, utility, and parking capacity plan is developed every 5 years.
The preliminary 2015
Master Plan will be presented to the Board of
Regents in May.
7

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
 Survey of User Needs
 Analysis and Formulation of CIP-based projects
January-April
April
 Presentation to the BOR Facilities Committee May
 Presentation of master Plan to BOR Facilities Committee May
 Incorporation into MP1 and submission to the THECB June
 Becomes basis for LAR/TRB requests July
8

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
MPEC Roles and Responsibilities
 Formally known as the CRDM committee.
 Responsible for prioritizing and recommending capital
renewal/deferred maintenance related projects for
funding by annual HEAF maintenance funds.
 Meets quarterly with additional meetings if needed.
 Subcommittee ( RSC –Review Subcommittee), that ranks proposed
projects according to weighted criteria and forwards them MPEC.
January 15, 2015 9

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Maintenance Project Evaluation Committee (MPEC) membership includes representation from Facilities Management administration and technical services group: Facilities Planning & Construction administration, planning, non-capital projects, and contract and financial services; Public Safety;
Information Technology technical services; Academic Affairs; Research and the Provost.
Review Subcommittee Membership (RSC) includes representation from
Facilities Management , and Facilities Planning & Construction , including planning and contract and financial services
10

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Project Origination
 Facilities Condition Assessment
 Request from campus
 Emergency Request
Evaluation (Projects over and under $50K)
Project Approval Process for projects over $50K
 Requestor submits project request
 Subcommittee (RSC) reviews & evaluates
 If sub-committee agrees the project meets the required criteria, the RSC presents to the MPEC for recommendation to administration.
 If MPEC recommends approval, submission is sent to administration.
January 15, 2015 11

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Project Approval Process for projects under $50K
 Requestor submits project request
 Subcommittee (RSC) reviews & evaluates
 If sub-committee agrees the project meets the required criteria, the
RSC submission is sent to VC/VP & Associate VC/CP of
Administration & Finance for approval.
January 15, 2015 12

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Project Scoring Matrix
HEAF MAINTENANCE FUNDS
PROJECT SCORING MATRIX
Project Request:
Reviewer:
CIP PROJECT SCORING CRITERIA
Score (0-5) Weight (%) Weighted score
20%
15%
0 Appropriateness of investment in building, considering the long-range plans for that building (including building FCIN)
0 Urgency of need to repair/replace building system or component
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
100%
0 Impact to teaching/research goals of university
0 Regulatory mandate or urgent life safety issue
0 Impact to business continuity
0 Economic payback (energy savings, etc.)
0 Other benefit (sustainability, campus appearance, etc.)
0 Opportunity to group with other projects
0 Funding contributions from other sources
0 TOTAL
January 15, 2015 13

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Immediate Needs
PROJECTS IN PROGRESS
1) Fine Arts HVAC
2) Engineering Fire pump
3) SR-1 Building Envelope/Stairs
4) Cullen Fountain refurbish
5) Card Access
6) AGL Demolition
9) Campus Wayfinding Signage
7) Fire Marshal mandated projects
8) Electrical Substation
FY15
Total: $15,575,000
2,200,000
2,100,000
2,000,000
500,000
2,300,000
250,000
2,675,000
3,000,000
550,000
$14.3 million
Need Exceeds
FY 15 Budget
PROJECTS IN PROGRESS – Scope TBD
1) Major shutdown – repair and backup power
2) Transfer existing building(s) to Substation
Total: $1,750,000
1,000,000
750,000
Grand Total
$17,325,000
May 6, 2014 14

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The construction market for Houston is volatile!
Signs of increasing competition for labor:
 Major K-12 Bond Projects
 MFA $450 million Redevelopment Plan
 Numerous cranes in the Houston area
Factors Mitigating Cost:
 Decline in oil prices
Timing affects costs! We will update the standardized cost data on which estimates are based quarterly
15

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
 The project approval process is analytical and objective .
 Project cost estimating involves a combination of THECB historical construction cost data, UH historical cost data, and market research.
 Construction cost estimated are escalated to meet the timing of the project.
 As our campus ages, and with continual new development, improvements to utility infrastructure take central stage.
 Existing utility capacity has a substantial impact on tech-intensive buildings.
 We are here to work with you on both short- and long-term projects, from lab start-ups to your 2020 goals and beyond.
16