EXECUTIVE SUMMARY UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA FACILITY CONDITION ANALYSIS JANUARY 2011 PREPARED BY: Kyle Thompson SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ONE: SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 1 A. FRC and FCNI Definition and Utilization ................................................................... 1 B. Analysis of Overall Conditions .................................................................................. 3 1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations for Facility Improvement .................................... 5 1.4 Additional Considerations .............................................................................................. 8 SECTION TWO: FCA DATA AND COMPARISONS 2.1 Figure 1 – Detailed Facility Inventory ............................................................................ 9 2.2 Figure 2 – Detailed Project Totals Matrix .................................................................... 11 2.3 Figure 3 – ISES Client History and FCNI Comparison Table and Graphs ..................... 12 2.4 Figure 4 – System Code Project Cost Distribution Chart ............................................. 15 2.5 Figure 5 – Project Classification Project Cost Distribution Chart ................................ 16 2.6 Figure 6 – Priority Class Project Cost Distribution Chart ............................................. 17 2.7 Figure 7 – Summary of FCNI and Project Cost by Facility ........................................... 18 2.8 Figure 8 – Summary of Average Age and Facility Use Types ...................................... 20 2.9 Figure 9 – Life Cycle Model Expenditure Projections .................................................. 22 2.10 Figure 10 – Geographical FCNI Range Map ................................................................. 23 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 1.1 Introduction The University of Hawai’i Mānoa was founded in 1907 as a land grant college near downtown Honolulu. Since then, the University has grown to include over 60 buildings and 4 million gross square feet on 320 acres. As part of a strategic planning initiative, Facilities Management solicited bids for a comprehensive condition assessment in the spring of 2010. After responding to the Request For Proposal, ISES Corporation was chosen by the University to provide Facility Condition Analysis (FCA) services. The FCA project included the inspection of 59 individual facilities, totaling nearly 4 million square feet. Most of the facilities were mixed use and predominately laboratory, classroom, and office space. Housing and athletics were omitted from the scope of work. The following observations and conclusions are based on a thorough Facility Condition Analysis of the 59 facilities by ISES Corporation personnel. The FCA process was supervised by Thomas Katsuyosi, Director of Facilities at UH Mānoa. The analysis was directed by Kyle Thompson, Director of Operations at ISES Corporation and Jonathan Thomas, P.E., CEM, LEED AP O+M; Senior Project Engineer at ISES Corporation. Survey teams members, consisting of architectural and engineering inspectors, collected, evaluated, and compiled the data for the study. 1.2 Summary of Findings A. FRC and FCNI Definition and Utilization The Facility Condition Needs Index (FCNI) provides a relative measure for comparing one building (or group of buildings) to another. This index is a simple calculation, derived by dividing the total project costs (for the ten‐year window covered by the FCA) by the total Facility Replacement Cost (FRC). When applying the index as an evaluation tool, the lower the number, the better the facility’s condition. It should also be noted that this is an index, not a percentage. It can (and often does in the case of historic facilities) exceed 1.00. 1 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary The FRC represents the cost to replace an existing building with one of similar use type and size on the same site. This includes demolition, site preparation, professional fees, and construction costs. ISES gives the client the option to develop their own FRCs or have ISES develop these costs for them. For this FCA effort, the University of Hawai’i Mānoa opted to have ISES develop the FRCs based on 2010 R.S. Means construction cost data. There are two main methods of applying the FCNI in analyzing the data derived from an FCA. The first method involves looking at individual facilities. When applying it to a single facility, the lower the FCNI, the better. In terms of assessing where a facility falls within a range of conditions, the following standards can be applied. Individual Building FCNI Range Condition Description 0.00 ‐ 0.10 Excellent condition, typically new construction 0.11 ‐ 0.20 Good condition, renovations occur on schedule 0.21 ‐ 0.30 Fair condition, in need of normal renovation 0.31 ‐ 0.50 Below average condition, major renovation required 0.51 ‐ 0.59 Poor condition, total renovation indicated 0.60 and above Complete facility replacement indicated The above ranges represent averages based upon ISES Corporation experience extending over 8,500 facilities with more than one billion gross square feet and associated infrastructure evaluations. The reader is cautioned, however, to examine each facility independently for mitigating factors (i.e., historic structures, temporary structures, facilities with abnormally low replacement costs, such as warehouses, etc.). The second method of utilizing the FCNI is for comparing groups of facilities to other groupings. Comparisons in this vein do not yield hard data, but rather form the basis of analysis for comparing the 2 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary overall state of facilities to another comparable grouping. Figure 3 in Section 2 of this document provides a listing of relevant ISES Corporation historical data for other institutions for which we have provided FCA services. B. Analysis of Overall Conditions The FCA process for the University of Hawai’i Mānoa culminated in a database listing deficiencies that need to be addressed over the next ten years. For the 59 buildings evaluated for this Executive Summary, ISES identified nearly $539 million in project recommendations over the next ten years. When compared to the $1.9 billion dollar replacement value for the facilities in the study, the subsequent FCNI equals 0.29. This FCNI figure is only slightly higher than the median typically experienced by ISES Corporation, indicating that these buildings are in average condition. With the weighted average age of 36 years for the portfolio analyzed, this FCNI is to be expected. For a complete analysis, it is necessary to look at individual components and classifications and then compare them to the median. The first area for standard analysis is reviewing the project backlog distribution across the various building systems. The table below summarizes this information and was derived from a review of the data in Figures 2 and 4 in Section 2. Data representing ISES client history statistics has been included for comparative purposes. University of Hawai’i at Mānoa ISES Historical Average AC EL ES FS HE HV IS PL SI VT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ALL NUMBERS IN PERCENTAGES‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
3.5 5.9 17.1 14.8 11.9 11.8 9.0 8.1 0.1 1.3 32.9 29.5 11.9 11.2 18.2 7.4 0.1 2.1 2.3 0.9 (AC‐Handicapped Accessibility, EL‐Electrical, ES‐Exterior Structure, FS‐Fire / Life Safety, HE‐Health, HV‐HVAC, IS‐Interior Finishes / Systems, PL‐
Plumbing, SI‐Site, VT‐Vertical Transportation) The median for Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) systems is about 52 percent of total backlog. MEP systems account for 61 percent of total deficiencies in the University of Hawai’i Mānoa database. This variance is to be expected as many HVAC, electrical, and plumbing systems throughout the campus were found to be at or beyond the end of their useful service lives. Recommended modern, centralized air 3 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary conditioning systems in buildings where they don’t already exist also contributed to this variance. Exterior envelope and Interior Finish categories, which normally amount to 30 percent or more, make up only 24 percent of the University of Hawai’i Mānoa project backlog. This deviation is likely due to the fact that funding for interior finish upgrades comes from multiple sources and is a high priority because it affects campus aesthetics. The inference that can be made is that interior finishes receive, whether inadvertent or not, the most attention of any building system. If this is the case, such a phenomenon is not uncommon among under‐funded facilities management organizations. It should also be noted that accessibility projects represent a considerably lower than average proportion of the project backlog, thus indicating that accessibility is also a high priority for the University of Hawai’i Mānoa. Next, we need to examine the distribution of project costs across the three project classifications. The three classifications utilized in categorizing the data are: A. Plant / Program Adaption: Expenditures required to adapt the physical plant to the evolving needs of the institution and to changing codes or standards. These are expenditures beyond normal maintenance. Examples include compliance with changing codes (e.g. accessibility), facility alterations required by changed teaching or research methods, and improvements occasioned by the adoption of modern technology (e.g., the use of personal computer networks). B. Deferred Maintenance: Refers to expenditures for repairs which were not accomplished as a part of normal maintenance or capital repair which have accumulated to the point that facility deterioration is evident and could impair the proper functioning of the facility. Costs estimated for Deferred Maintenance projects should include compliance with applicable codes, even if such compliance requires expenditures beyond those essential to affect the needed repairs. Deferred Maintenance projects represent catch up expenses. C. Capital Renewal: A subset of regular or normal facility maintenance which refers to major repairs or the replacement / rebuilding of major facility components (e.g., roof replacement at the end of its normal useful life is capital repair; roof replacement several years after its normal useful life is Deferred Maintenance). 4 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary Plant / Program Adaption University of Hawai’i at Mānoa ISES Historical Average Deferred Maintenance Capital Renewal ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ALL NUMBERS IN PERCENTAGES‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 17.1 20.3 37.7 28.4 45.2 51.3 In the chart above, we can see that 17.1 percent of the project backlog falls within the Adaption Project classification. Consisting mostly of fire / life safety upgrades, the University of Hawai’i Mānoa is slightly better than other clients in this project classification. The ratio of Capital Renewal projects to Deferred Maintenance projects at the University of Hawai’i Mānoa is somewhat lower than past ISES clientele. This indicates that, while diligent maintenance efforts are keeping them operational, the original systems have often far exceeded their statistical life cycles and need to be replaced. This corroborates the assertion that MEP systems tend to be maintained indefinitely and minimally renewed. Finally, we will compare how the backlog falls within the four priority classes, as shown in the chart below: University of Hawai’i at Mānoa ISES Historical Average Priority 1 and 2 (Year 1) Priority 3 (Years 2‐5) Priority 4 (Years 6‐10) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ALL NUMBERS IN PERCENTAGES‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 11.5 22 62.9 58 25.6 20 For this group of buildings, Priorities 1 and 2 account for only 11.5 percent of the total backlog compared to the 22 percent ISES Historical Average. This shift can be attributed to the fact that the buildings in the study group are mission critical educational and research facilities where forced outages are unacceptable and potentially critical deficiencies are promptly corrected. Priorities 3 and 4 account for 89 percent of the total backlog. The higher percentage of deficiencies in priority class 3 and 4 indicates that while the facilities in this group are currently in average condition, they can rapidly deteriorate if adequate funding is not secured and systems renewed. 1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations for Facility Improvement The preceding sections of this report, supported by the graphs and charts contained in Section 2, illustrate that the overall conditions for the University of Hawai’i Mānoa occupied facilities are on par with the norm 5 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary found from past ISES FCA clients. The University of Hawai’i Mānoa currently lies at the 42nd percentile of ISES clientele with similar characteristics. As is usually the case, MEP systems are in need of the most renewal funding. These systems are relatively expensive to replace. However, the cost to replace them would be hedged in most cases by energy savings and lower maintenance costs. The funding model tool in the ISES AMS database calculates that the status quo FCNI of 0.286 can be maintained by reinvesting at the rate of 1.84 percent of plant value (currently $34.7 million annually). The chart below shows the projected FCNI and backlog (after ten years) resulting from the reinvestment of various percentages of Plant Value. The funding model is interactive and, in its calculations, can include projected rates at which the portfolio will grow, that existing backlog will increase due to maintenance deferral, and that new backlog will occur. Many different scenarios can be played out in this powerful financial model feature of the database software. The Life Cycle Model projection (Figure 9) shows an average annual cost per square foot for these University of Hawai’i Mānoa facilities in the amount of $8.24. This figure is derived by estimating the cost to replace all major systems / components of the buildings as they reach the end of their estimated life spans over a fifty‐year period. When the annual average of $8.24 per gross square foot is applied to 6 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary the entire group of facilities inspected, it results in an annual Capital Renewal funding requirement of $32.9 million. This figure is less than the aforementioned status quo annual reinvestment rate because the LCM does not take ADA and building code driven projects into account. Still, the number is on par with the annual reinvestment rate required to keep the overall condition of facilities from deteriorating. The ISES FCA paints the picture for long‐term capital needs. The data captured in it can serve as project planning guides as buildings are selected for renovation. FCNI comparisons can be utilized to help determine which buildings should be replaced in lieu of renovation. The chart below suggests how the FCNI data can help determine what actions should be taken for long‐range facility portfolio improvements: FCNI Range Condition Description Number of buildings % of GSF 0.00 ‐ 0.10 Excellent condition, typically new construction 8 14.65% 0.11 ‐ 0.20 Good condition, renovations occur on schedule 8 10.51% 0.21 ‐ 0.30 Fair condition, in need of normal renovation 12 28.02% 0.31 ‐ 0.50 Below average condition, major renovation required 29 44.20% 0.51 ‐ 0.59 Poor condition, total renovation indicated 2 2.17% Complete facility replacement indicated 1 0.45% 0.60 and above The total identified backlog, along with the FCNI projection capabilities built into the database, can be used to predict what levels of funding are necessary for future years. Once a target condition has been established in terms of FCNI, individual facilities can be selected for renovation or replacement as dictated by their condition. For assets selected for renovation, use the FCA data to ensure that all major issues associated with a given asset are dealt with at renovation time. Also use the FCA data to support replacement of economically non‐viable facilities. 7 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary 1.4 Additional Considerations When planning for the annual investment required to meet the desired goal, keep in mind that the annual investments discussed above represent funding from all sources (annual Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal funding, major renovation funding, program‐related grant funding that provides for space renewal, and so on). Note that new construction will have a positive effect on the FCNI provided that existing buildings are replaced with new structures. If new structures are built but the older facilities are kept in service, the FCNI will grow or worsen. Also, if the maintenance staff is not increased commensurately with adding square footage to the portfolio, the FCNI issue will be compounded. 8 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary FCA DATA AND COMPARISONS 2.1 Figure 1 – Detailed Facility Inventory BLDG CODE NAME BLDG USE YEAR BUILT GSF FRC TOTAL PROJECT COSTS FCNI 1002 1012 1014 1016 1017 HAWAI'I HALL INSTITUTE FOR ASTRONOMY SAUNDERS HALL ARCHITECTURE BUILDING SHIDLER COLLEGE OF BUSINESS OF LB CL CL CL 1912 1976 1973 1996 1972 36,489 55,400 126,738 58,000 129,143 $14,119,000 $21,437,000 $49,041,000 $23,939,000 $51,822,000 $515,295 $11,614,988 $16,072,931 $3,101,045 $12,490,131 0.04 0.54 0.33 0.13 0.24 1019 1020 GEORGE HALL QUEEN LILI'UOKALANI CTR FOR STUDENT SVCS DEAN HALL WIST HALL SAKAMAKI HALL ART BUILDING HEMENWAY HALL CRAWFORD HALL MILLER HALL CASTLE MEMORIAL HALL CENTER FOR KOREAN STUDIES KHET TV EVERLY HALL GILMORE HALL SHERMAN LABORATORY MUSIC BUILDING COMPLEX MARINE SCIENCES BUILDING BACHMAN HALL PHYSICAL EDUCATION / ATHLETIC COMPLEX HECO SUBSTATION STAN SHERIFF CENTER BILGER HALL BILGER ADDITION CENTER FOR HAWAI’IAN STUDIES SINCLAIR LIBRARY LAW SCHOOL LAW LIBRARY UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL #3 KELLER HALL PHYSICAL SCIENCE BUILDING CL OF 1922 1996 47,761 103,000 $19,508,000 $39,856,000 $4,011,801 $2,188,401 0.21 0.05 CL CL OF CL SU CL CL CL CL OF CL LB LB CL LB OF GM 1929 1930 1976 1974 1939 1938 1939 1941 1980 1973 1979 1978 1985 1973 1984 1949 1982 18,768 24,591 87,206 157,462 34,861 24,662 19,273 28,484 16,569 19,400 20,625 73,180 49,042 44,970 95,500 28,070 119,200 $8,916,000 $10,220,000 $33,744,000 $65,443,000 $15,631,000 $10,250,000 $8,010,000 $11,838,000 $6,411,000 $7,507,000 $8,572,000 $43,599,000 $29,218,000 $18,690,000 $56,897,000 $10,862,000 $45,648,000 $4,093,869 $3,299,259 $11,304,598 $20,691,283 $6,432,910 $267,510 $3,841,064 $2,997,562 $1,188,098 $3,687,662 $4,323,520 $21,969,676 $14,497,585 $6,519,353 $20,096,546 $4,427,081 $9,944,929 0.46 0.32 0.34 0.32 0.41 0.03 0.48 0.25 0.19 0.49 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.35 0.35 0.41 0.22 WH GM LB LB CL LY CL LY CL CL CL 1998 1994 1952 1972 1997 1956 1985 1982 1957 1959 1960 4,500 190,000 74,906 73,330 22,000 117,797 53,190 33,245 27,241 49,143 42,873 $843,000 $68,463,000 $44,627,000 $43,688,000 $8,513,000 $50,405,000 $22,106,000 $14,225,000 $11,322,000 $19,016,000 $17,511,000 $135,489 $16,383,196 $21,403,728 $11,394,215 $2,610,389 $17,116,216 $4,181,911 $2,448,643 $3,822,232 $7,265,117 $8,098,133 0.16 0.24 0.48 0.26 0.31 0.34 0.19 0.17 0.34 0.38 0.46 1030 1039 1047 1049 1056 1057 1062 1068 1076 1079 1081 1089 1090 1091 1098 1107 1110 1115A 1118 1126 1126A 1131 1133 1142 1143 1151 1158 1159 9 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary BLDG CODE 1160 1162 1163 1164 1165 1167 1168 1169 1172 1175 1177 1183 1185 1188 1190 1192 1193 1195 1198 1199A 1199B 1199C 1210 9684 9685 NAME WATANABE HALL PACIFIC OCEAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOLMES HALL EDMONDSON HALL HAWAI’I INSTITUTE OF GEOPHYSICS WEBSTER HALL SPALDING HALL POPE LABORATORY (INC GREENHOUSE) BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE BUILDING MOORE HALL SNYDER HALL KENNEDY THEATRE COLLEGE HILL AUXILIARY SERVICES UNIVERSITY HEALTH SERVICES KUYKENDALL HALL PHYSICAL PLANT BUILDING MAINTENANCE WAREHOUSE ST JOHN LABORATORY COMPLEX HAMILTON LIBRARY PHASE I HAMILTON LIBRARY PHASE II HAMILTON LIBRARY PHASE III AGRICULTURE SCIENCE FACILITY HAWAI'I INSTITUTE OF MARINE BIOLOGY PAULEY‐PAGEN LABORATORY BLDG USE YEAR BUILT GSF FRC TOTAL PROJECT COSTS FCNI LB LB 1972 1995 66,167 225,000 $30,317,000 $134,050,000 $7,810,833 $14,332,506 0.26 0.11 LB LB LB CL CL LB 1972 1963 1963 1961 1961 1973 88,546 43,480 126,708 59,559 33,012 35,808 $52,754,000 $18,071,000 $75,490,000 $24,753,000 $13,531,000 $13,709,000 $17,374,537 $7,844,097 $34,646,348 $1,865,801 $6,382,226 $4,374,983 0.33 0.43 0.46 0.08 0.47 0.32 LB CL LB TH DM OF MC CL OF ST LB LY LY LY LB LB 1972 1969 1962 1963 1963 1962 1963 1964 1963 1963 1969 1968 1977 2000 1999 1965 184,592 110,940 18,030 47,302 10,220 24,336 10,792 86,492 4,302 25,445 125,796 107,900 172,243 121,453 110,786 31,250 $104,458,000 $42,928,000 $10,742,000 $19,853,000 $3,267,000 $10,911,000 $4,132,000 $33,468,000 $1,665,000 $8,387,000 $74,946,000 $46,170,000 $73,702,000 $51,969,000 $66,004,000 $34,487,000 $48,676,114 $12,779,766 $7,206,865 $5,504,350 $873,734 $3,333,320 $1,462,148 $10,698,237 $285,910 $1,609,788 $18,221,570 $3,556,138 $15,476,989 $2,846,598 $6,673,461 $18,588,837 0.47 0.3 0.67 0.28 0.27 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.17 0.19 0.24 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.1 0.54 LB 1998 22,000 $24,279,000 $1,909,894 0.08 3,998,778 GRAND TOTALS 10 $1,885,940,000 $538,771,415 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM 0.29 UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary 2.2 Figure 2 – Detailed Project Totals Matrix SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ACCESSIBILITY ELECTRICAL EXTERIOR FIRE/LIFE SAFETY HEALTH HVAC INTERIOR FINISHES/SYS. PLUMBING SITE VERT. TRANSPORTATION TOTALS PRIORITIES 1 2 3 4 TOTALS 465,547
0
0
2,648,820
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,704,043
2,645,251
5,400,978
41,219,489
0
383,910
554,910
1,865
0
0
9,099,854
75,856,876
20,163,512
3,129,419
490,858
128,914,401
57,189,321
33,385,574
402,152
10,133,714
337,873 13,464,623 38,618,979 1,513,943 269,847 48,069,473 6,611,127 26,846,930 0 2,248,129 18,607,318
91,966,750
64,183,469
48,511,670
760,704
177,367,784
64,355,357
60,234,368
402,152
12,381,843
3,114,367 58,910,445 338,765,680 137,980,923 538,771,415 CAPITAL RENEWAL $243,308,030 DEFERRED MAINTENANCE $203,365,918 PLANT/PROGRAM ADAPTION $92,097,468 FACILITY REPLACEMENT COST $1,885,940,000 FACILITY CONDITION NEEDS INDEX (FCNI) 0.29 GROSS SQUARE FEET 3,998,778 TOTAL PROJECT COST PER SQUARE FOOT $134.73 11 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary 2.3 Figure 3 – ISES Client History and FCNI Comparison Table and Graphs Sampling of ISES Client History List
Client Name
University of Notre Dame
Middlebury College
California State University Channel Islands
Rice University
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of North Florida
Vanderbilt University
Pennsylvania State University, Regional Campuses
Duke University Medical Center
Pepperdine University
Pennsylvania State University, University Park Campus
University of Southern California
Florida State University
Washington University Main Campus
Stanford University II
University of Iowa
California Institute of Technology
California State University Long Beach
University of Michigan
University of Nebraska
San Francisco State University
Tarleton State University
University of Chicago
University of Missouri Kansas City
University of West Georgia
Portland Community College
Stanford University I
East Carolina University
University of Rochester
University of Houston
Northern Michigan University
Chapman University
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
Portland State University
University of Missouri Columbia
Morehouse College
Rowan University
Phillips Exeter Academy
Kenyon College
Oklahoma State University
Princeton University
University of Connecticut
Texas A&M University
California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo
University of Minnesota
Louisiana State University Healthcare
University of California Irvine
University of Missouri‐St. Louis
University of South Carolina
Oregon State University
University of Miami ‐ Coral Gables
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
George Washington University, The
University of Alabama San Diego State University
Miami University, Ohio
Averages
Year of Inspection
2010
2000
2010
2010
2005
2008
2010
2010
2005
2008
2010
2010
2008
2008
2007
2010
2007
2005
2003
2001
2003
2002
2010
2008
2004
2010
2002
2009
2007
2001
2000
2002
2010
2008
2010
2007
2005
2007
2007
2009
2010
2006
2008
2006
2007
2002
2007
2010
2004
2000
2006
2006
2002
2005
2006
2007
2006
Facility Project Gross Square Asset Average Avg. Age Condition Backlog per Feet
Count Year Built at Insp.
Needs Index
Square Foot
0.11
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.29
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.39
0.40
0.41
0.43
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.45
0.48
0.27
9,079,021
1,440,035
919,735
4,255,963
7,780,731
1,720,437
8,564,168
4,615,494
9,347,802
1,483,295
13,224,848
14,073,634
6,264,871
7,304,946
2,512,843
10,124,253
4,120,495
3,673,351
22,782,275
4,261,626
1,908,545
1,170,882
8,685,755
2,419,857
1,334,306
2,055,698
2,586,556
4,003,456
5,387,635
5,988,420
3,298,899
1,209,650
3,998,778
4,062,486
7,993,230
844,948
1,940,879
1,551,807
825,023
3,086,167
1,028,470
11,758,814
17,451,046
859,028
26,573,070
3,635,551
336,208
1,750,014
8,780,323
5,318,016
3,485,330
3,087,759
3,623,150
5,509,132
1,619,605
1,527,840
5,325,824
12 136
76
32
78
113
28
115
218
104
54
229
214
97
129
47
99
146
98
228
69
21
47
130
38
36
39
50
67
23
82
48
31
60
37
121
24
44
132
52
40
127
311
297
36
318
54
26
39
100
94
88
51
84
134
21
30
94
1963
1939
1975
1976
1974
1990
1955
1970
1974
1986
1959
1967
1973
1969
1947
1955
1954
1973
1955
1960
1962
1970
1956
1966
1963
1983
1957
1964
1965
1971
1972
1980
1974
1968
1957
1971
1962
1937
1949
1962
1953
1967
1973
1968
1956
1961
1970
1970
1967
1949
1965
1976
1960
1950
1967
1954
1964
47
61
35
34
31
18
55
35
31
22
51
43
35
39
60
55
53
32
48
41
41
32
54
42
41
27
45
45
42
30
28
22
36
40
53
36
32
70
58
47
57
39
35
38
51
41
37
40
37
51
41
30
42
55
39
53
42
$37.03
$26.60
$50.80
$60.63
$23.93
$40.40
$52.23
$63.24
$33.60
$61.59
$78.89
$76.56
$59.00
$63.13
$80.58
$92.66
$69.66
$56.34
$107.15
$10.34
$70.16
$40.41
$103.71
$79.96
$45.01
$93.49
$63.31
$92.83
$91.78
$42.74
$50.77
$48.30
$134.73
$70.03
$87.43
$66.97
$74.51
$82.55
$84.38
$111.29
$117.29
$85.11
$89.87
$77.06
$99.41
$89.53
$89.47
$154.57
$57.51
$55.24
$89.45
$26.37
$82.16
$51.75
$105.04
$94.23
$72.19
Total Backlog
$336,206,058
$38,310,987
$46,720,203
$258,037,755
$186,205,554
$69,498,230
$447,293,101
$291,905,030
$314,090,445
$91,362,453
$1,043,341,585
$1,077,476,786
$369,649,466
$461,126,432
$202,481,536
$938,074,572
$287,049,757
$206,952,566
$2,441,174,884
$44,052,261
$133,898,966
$47,310,861
$900,815,770
$193,486,256
$60,061,598
$192,190,548
$163,753,297
$371,660,376
$494,470,898
$255,952,690
$167,481,965
$58,426,248
$538,771,415
$284,495,209
$698,844,086
$56,583,054
$144,619,873
$128,102,742
$69,612,041
$343,450,807
$120,630,423
$1,000,773,188
$1,568,245,670
$66,198,105
$2,641,730,320
$325,490,196
$30,082,075
$270,494,377
$504,990,688
$293,752,489
$311,769,384
$81,417,630
$297,694,823
$285,113,705
$170,118,528
$143,963,945
$402,990,427
FCNI Avg Year Percent Built Percent Rank
Rank
100%
99%
97%
97%
97%
97%
90%
90%
86%
86%
82%
80%
79%
77%
75%
73%
73%
70%
68%
68%
64%
64%
60%
60%
60%
60%
53%
53%
53%
53%
53%
53%
42%
42%
35%
39%
39%
35%
35%
35%
28%
28%
28%
22%
20%
20%
20%
15%
13%
11%
10%
10%
6%
4%
4%
0%
ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM 59%
99%
11%
10%
17%
0%
84%
35%
17%
2%
71%
48%
22%
37%
97%
84%
88%
22%
84%
70%
64%
35%
79%
50%
59%
4%
75%
55%
53%
28%
24%
6%
17%
40%
75%
28%
64%
100%
95%
64%
90%
48%
22%
40%
79%
66%
35%
35%
48%
95%
53%
10%
70%
91%
48%
88%
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary Sampling of ISES Client History – FCNI vs. Campus Size Sampling of ISES Client History ‐ Profile
0.60
0.50
0.40
FCNI
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
‐
5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 Size(Sq. Ft.)
13 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary Sampling of ISES Client History ‐ FCNI vs. Average Facility Age Sampling of ISES Client History ‐ FCNI Comparison
0.60
0.50
0.40
FCNI
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Age
14 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary 2.4 Figure 4 – System Code Project Cost Distribution Chart 2.3%
11.2%
0.1%
3.5%
17.1%
ACCESSIBILITY
11.9%
ELECTRICAL
EXTERIOR
FIRE/LIFE SAFETY
11.9%
HEALTH
HVAC
INTERIOR/FINISH SYS.
PLUMBING
9.0%
0.1%
SITE
VERT. TRANSPORTATION
32.9%
15 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary 2.5 Figure 5 – Project Classification Project Cost Distribution Chart 17.1%
45.2%
Capital Renewal
Deferred Maintenance
Plant Adaption
37.7%
16 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary 2.6 Figure 6 – Priority Class Project Cost Distribution Chart 0.6%
10.9%
25.6%
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3
Priority 4
62.9%
17 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary 2.7 Figure 7 – Summary of FCNI and Project Cost by Facility BLDG CODE 1057 1002 1020 1199C 1167 1199A 9685 1210 1162 1016 1115A 1143 1193 1076 1142 1195 1019 1199B 1110 1017 1118 1198 1068 1126A 1160 1185 1183 1175 NAME CRAWFORD HALL HAWAI'I HALL QUEEN LILI'UOKALANI CTR FOR STUDENT SVCS HAMILTON LIBRARY PHASE III WEBSTER HALL HAMILTON LIBRARY PHASE I PAULEY‐PAGEN LABORATORY AGRICULTURE SCIENCE FACILITY PACIFIC OCEAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ARCHITECTURE BUILDING HECO SUBSTATION LAW LIBRARY PHYSICAL PLANT BUILDING CENTER FOR KOREAN STUDIES LAW SCHOOL MAINTENANCE WAREHOUSE GEORGE HALL HAMILTON LIBRARY PHASE II PHYSICAL EDUCATION / ATHLETIC COMPLEX SHIDLER COLLEGE OF BUSINESS STAN SHERIFF CENTER ST JOHN LABORATORY COMPLEX CASTLE MEMORIAL HALL BILGER ADDITION WATANABE HALL COLLEGE HILL KENNEDY THEATRE MOORE HALL BLDG USE YEAR GSF BUILT FCNI 0.00 to 0.10 CL
1938
24,662
OF
1912
36,489
OF
1996
103,000
$10,250,000 $14,119,000 $39,856,000 $267,510 $515,295 $2,188,401 0.03
0.04
0.05
LY
CL
LY
LB
LB
121,453
59,559
107,900
22,000
110,786
$51,969,000 $24,753,000 $46,170,000 $24,279,000 $66,004,000 $2,846,598 $1,865,801 $3,556,138 $1,909,894 $6,673,461 0.05
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.1
FCNI 0.11 to 0.20 1995
225,000
$134,050,000 $14,332,506 0.11
58,000
4,500
33,245
4,302
16,569
53,190
25,445
$23,939,000 $843,000 $14,225,000 $1,665,000 $6,411,000 $22,106,000 $8,387,000 $3,101,045 $135,489 $2,448,643 $285,910 $1,188,098 $4,181,911 $1,609,788 0.13
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.19
FCNI 0.21 to 0.30 CL
1922
47,761
LY
1977
172,243
GM
1982
119,200
$19,508,000 $73,702,000 $45,648,000 $4,011,801 $15,476,989 $9,944,929 0.21
0.21
0.22
CL
GM
LB
CL
LB
LB
DM
TH
CL
$51,822,000 $68,463,000 $74,946,000 $11,838,000 $43,688,000 $30,317,000 $3,267,000 $19,853,000 $42,928,000 $12,490,131 $16,383,196 $18,221,570 $2,997,562 $11,394,215 $7,810,833 $873,734 $5,504,350 $12,779,766 0.24
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.3
LB
CL
WH
LY
OF
CL
CL
ST
2000
1961
1968
1998
1999
1996
1998
1982
1963
1980
1985
1963
1972
1994
1969
1941
1972
1972
1963
1963
1969
18 129,143
190,000
125,796
28,484
73,330
66,167
10,220
47,302
110,940
FRC TOTAL PROJECT COSTS FCNI ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary BLDG CODE NAME 1131 CENTER FOR HAWAI’IAN STUDIES 1188 1039 1049 1169 AUXILIARY SERVICES
WIST HALL ART BUILDING POPE LABORATORY (INC GREENHOUSE) KUYKENDALL HALL SAUNDERS HALL HOLMES HALL SAKAMAKI HALL SINCLAIR LIBRARY UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL #3 MUSIC BUILDING COMPLEX MARINE SCIENCES BUILDING UNIVERSITY HEALTH SERVICES KELLER HALL 1192 1014 1163 1047 1133 1151 1091 1098 1190 1158 1056 1107 1164 1030 1159 1165 1168 1172 1062 1126 1079 1081 1089 1090 1012 9684 1177 BLDG USE YEAR GSF BUILT FCNI 0.31 to 0.40 CL
1997
22,000
FRC TOTAL PROJECT COSTS FCNI $8,513,000 $2,610,389 0.31
OF
CL
CL
LB
1962
1930
1974
1973
24,336
24,591
157,462
35,808
$10,911,000 $10,220,000 $65,443,000 $13,709,000 $3,333,320 $3,299,259 $20,691,283 $4,374,983 0.31
0.32
0.32
0.32
CL
CL
LB
OF
LY
CL
CL
LB
MC
CL
1964
1973
1972
1976
1956
1957
1973
1984
1963
1959
86,492
126,738
88,546
87,206
117,797
27,241
44,970
95,500
10,792
49,143
$33,468,000 $49,041,000 $52,754,000 $33,744,000 $50,405,000 $11,322,000 $18,690,000 $56,897,000 $4,132,000 $19,016,000 $10,698,237 $16,072,931 $17,374,537 $11,304,598 $17,116,216 $3,822,232 $6,519,353 $20,096,546 $1,462,148 $7,265,117 0.32
0.33
0.33
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.38
FCNI 0.41 to 0.50 1939
34,861
1949
28,070
1963
43,480
1929
18,768
1960
42,873
1963
126,708
$15,631,000 $10,862,000 $18,071,000 $8,916,000 $17,511,000 $75,490,000 $6,432,910
$4,427,081 $7,844,097 $4,093,869 $8,098,133 $34,646,348 0.41
0.41
0.43
0.46
0.46
0.46
33,012
184,592
19,273
74,906
19,400
20,625
73,180
49,042
$13,531,000 $104,458,000 $8,010,000 $44,627,000 $7,507,000 $8,572,000 $43,599,000 $29,218,000 $6,382,226 $48,676,114 $3,841,064 $21,403,728 $3,687,662 $4,323,520 $21,969,676 $14,497,585 0.47
0.47
0.48
0.48
0.49
0.5
0.5
0.5
55,400
31,250
$21,437,000 $34,487,000 $11,614,988 $18,588,837 0.54
0.54
18,030
$10,742,000 $7,206,865 0.67
HEMENWAY HALL BACHMAN HALL EDMONDSON HALL DEAN HALL PHYSICAL SCIENCE BUILDING HAWAI’I INSTITUTE OF GEOPHYSICS SPALDING HALL BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE BUILDING MILLER HALL BILGER HALL KHET TV EVERLY HALL GILMORE HALL SHERMAN LABORATORY SU
OF
LB
CL
CL
LB
INSTITUTE FOR ASTRONOMY HAWAI'I INSTITUTE OF MARINE BIOLOGY SNYDER HALL LB
LB
CL
LB
CL
LB
OF
CL
LB
LB
LB
1961
1972
1939
1952
1973
1979
1978
1985
FCNI > 0.51 1976
1965
1962
19 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary 2.8 Figure 8 – Summary of Average Age and Facility Use Types YEAR # OF FACILITIES % OF GSF Pre 1930 3 2.58% 103,018 90 1930 – 1939 4 2.59% 103,387 73 1940 – 1949 2 1.41% 56,554 65 1950 – 1959 4 6.73% 269,087 54 1960 – 1969 17 22.72% 908,437 45 1970 – 1979 15 33.38% 1,334,810 36 1980 – 1989 6 9.17% 366,746 27 1990 – 1999 8 18.39% 735,286 14 2000 – Present 1 3.04% 121,453 10 TOTALS 60 GSF 3,998,778 AVG. AGE 36 20 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary FACILITY TYPE CODE DESCRIPTION # OF FACILITIES CL Classroom / Academic 22 30.05% 1,201,496 DM Dormitory / Apartments 1 0.26% 10,220 GM Gymnasium / Athletics 2 7.73% 309,200 LB Laboratory 18 37.50% 1,499,521 LY Library 5 13.82% 552,638 MC Medical / Clinic 1 0.27% 10,792 OF Office / Administrative 7 7.57% 302,803 ST Shops / Trade 1 0.64% 25,445 SU Student Union 1 0.87% 34,861 TH Theater / Auditorium 1 1.18% 47,302 WH Warehouse/Storage/Utility 1 0.11% 4,500 TOTALS 60 21 % OF GSF GSF 3,998,778 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary 2.9 Figure 9 – Life Cycle Model Expenditure Projections Average Annual Renewal Cost Per Square Foot: $8.24
22 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOA Facility Condition Analysis Executive Summary 2.10 Figure 10 – Geographical FCNI Range Map 23 ISES CORPORATION | 2165 W PARK COURT | SUITE N | STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087 | 770.879.7376 | WWW.ISESCORP.COM FCNI INDEX KEY