CGSA Conference 2014
San Diego, CA
Facility Effectiveness Assessment Tool
Department of General Services
County of San Diego
Portfolio Management
30 to 50
>50 years
Area in sq ft
<30 years
Non-Historic
902.7 ksf
Historic
641 ksf
Year of measure
2
A basis for strategic facilities
decisions
Recapitalization - Replacement of building subsystems
Renewal - Improvement, addition or expansion of
facilities
Replacement - Relocation or new construction
3
Implementation
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) - Short-range plan of capital
projects linking the county’s comprehensive and strategic
plans and its annual budget. Achieved through Capital
Improvement Needs Assessment.
Strategic Facilities Plan- Organization’s business objectives
over 10-20 years to determine short-term tactical plans (CIP,
MMIP).
4
Potential Performance
Measures
Facilities Performance
Possible tools for considering facilities performance:
Facilities Condition Index
• Maintenance deficiencies ($) divided by Current Replacement Value
• Comparative indicator of relative facilities conditions
Facilities Operations/CRV Index APPA FPIs.pdf
• Annual facilities operating cost divided by Current Replacement Value
• Level of funding provided for the stewardship responsibility of the county’s annual facilities
operating expenditures
Facilities Operations/GSF Index APPA FPIs.pdf
• Annual facilities operating cost divided by Gross Square Feet
• Level of funding provided for the stewardship responsibility of the county’s general capital
assets
Facilities Operations/GCE APPA FPIs.pdf
• Annual facilities operating cost divided by Gross County Expenditures
• Level of funding provided for the stewardship responsibility of the county’s general capital
assets
6
Facilities Performance
Capital Renewal Index APPA FPIs.pdf
• Annual renewal/renovation/modernization expenditures (MMIP) divided by current
replacement value
• Level of funding provided for the renewal/renovation/modernization needs
Needs Index APPA FPIs.pdf
• Capital renewal and needs backlog plus renovation/modernization need divided by Current
Replacement Value
• Overall indicator of facilities condition. Influenced by resource availability and utilization
Cost Per Person GSA Creates New Performance Models for Cost and Effectiveness.pdf
• Annual facility operating costs per square foot times number of square feet per person.
• Operating costs include rental cost or maintenance/utilities cost plus IT and
telecommunications cost per work station plus work station furniture (life cycle cost) plus
alternative work environment considerations.
• Alternative Work Environment considerations developed by GSA (1999)
7
Facilities Performance
Post-Occupancy Evaluations/ Building Performance Evaluations…Facility
Performance Evaluation (FPE) Whole Building Design Guide.mht
• Conveys the characteristics of buildings that work well and best, and identifies the
ones that should not be repeated in future designs of buildings
• Often aligned with LEED rating system
• Short-term benefits are related to immediate design decisions, and facility
maintenance and management issues
• Medium-term (3- to 5-yr period) benefits are related to generating useful
information for future projects, and
• Long-term (10- to 25-yr period) benefits are related to improving the long-term
performance of buildings and to justifying major expenditures
All are related to building functionality only.
Need more measurement points.
8
Affinity Grouping
Performance Indicators
Affinity Grouping
Performance Indicators
Program/Function Efficiency (Public image and reputation, collaboration with
community service partners, coordination with municipal services, appropriate
services, work life quality, psychological and social well being
• Staffing ratios
• Employee survey
• Client survey
• Efficiency of services (?)
• SF/FTE or FTE/SF
Facility Attributes (Work space efficiency, flexible/adaptable, adequate space)
• FCI
• CM/PM ratio
• Age1) New, old, historical;
2) Code compliant
• Original or expansion
1
0
Affinity Grouping
Performance Indicators
Site/Location (Convenient location, public access and way finding, safe and secure)
• Parking spaces
• Public Transportation
Cost Effectiveness (Value of property, life cycle costing)
• O&M $/SF
• O&M $/FTE
• Rent $/SF
• Energy $
11
Process
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats – SWOT Analysis
• Working with HHSA, a team of various staff functions performed SWOT Analysis on
several HHSA facilities- 3 Family Resource Centers, Adoption Center, Child Services
Center.
o All 2-story office buildings
o Between 20,000 and 50,000 SF
o Between 5 and 50 years old.
• Team members
o HHSA Facilities Manager
o General Services Capital Planning staff
o General Services Real Estate Services staff
o General Services Facilities Operations staff
o General Services Space Planning staff
o General Services Financial Management staff
12
Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, Threats
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
Location relative to client
Age (Old)
Real estate disposition (sale, new…)
Indoor air quality issues
Proximity to public transit
Leased
Value for potential sale
Local gov't jurisdictional issues
Easily accessible
Overcrowded
Relocate "back of house" functions
Potential hazardous exposure
Sufficient parking
General building condittion
Energy efficiency/LEED certification
Location
Title 24 standards
Space utilization
Entitlements
Age- Historic?
Age (New)
Use density
Street appearence
ADA compliance
General building condittion
Insufficient parking
Site stormwater/drainage
issues
Construction method
Owned site
Upgraded
MEP/infrastructure
Constrained site
Entitlements
Environmentally Sensitive Area
Neighborhood redevelopment
Location constraints
General site safety and security
Potential health hazards
Congested site/crowded
Construction method
Energy inefficiency
Street accessibility
Entitlements
13
SWOT Affinity Groupings
Program/Function Efficiency
Facility Attributes
Site/Location
Cost Effectiveness
O Relocate "back of house" functions
W
Use density
S,W Owned/Leased site
S
Title 24 standards
W
S
W
O
W,S
W
W
W
W,T
Entitlements
Environmentally Sensitive Area
Site stormwater/drainage issues
Constrained site
Location (constraints)
W
S
W
S
O
O
W
O
O
O,T
Energy efficiency/LEED certification
Energy inefficiency
Real estate disposition (sale, new…)
Value for potential sale
O&M costs
T
W
T
S,W
Neighborhood redevelopment
ADA compliance
Local gov't jurisdictional issues
Construction method
T,O Neighborhood development/re-development
S Location relative to client
S,W
S
S
S,W
T
T
W
W
General building condittion
Upgraded MEP/infrastructure
Street appearence
Insufficient/Sufficient parking
Indoor air quality issues
Potential health hazards
Potential hazardous exposure
General site safety and security
Space utilization
Location relative to client
Overcrowded
Occupancy
Congested site/crowded
Proximity to public transit
Street accessibility
Easily accessible
Area demographics (past, trends, future)
S,W,T Age (New, Old, Historic)
14
Facilities Effectiveness
Assessment Matrix
Program Attributes
o Space Utilization- Max-30
o
Good
25% -30%
o
Average
15%-25%
o
Fair
5%-15%
o
Poor
0%- 5%
o Logistical- Max- 20
o
Good
o
Fair
o
Average
o
Poor
15%-20%
10%-15%
5%-10%
<5%
o Environmental- Max- 20
o
Good
o
Fair
o
Average
o
Poor
15%-20%
10%-15%
5%-10%
<5%
oSafety- Max-30
o
Good
o
Average
o
Fair
o
Poor
25% -30%
15%-25%
5%-15%
0%- 5%
score –
Site Attributes
Current Use Permit Valid – Y 15
N 0
Sufficient parking for Staff- Y 10
N 0
Clients- Y 10
N 0
Location favorable for- Workforce
Clients
Safe/secure location
score –
Y 10
N 0
Y 10
N 0
Y
10
N
0
Public transit available
Y
10
N
0
Potential disposition:
Expansion
15
Resale opportunity
10
Constrained
0
Compatible affinities near-by
Y
10
N
0
Facilities Attributes
score –
oFCI (Deficiency $/Replacement Value)
o
0.0-0.05Good 30
o
> 0.05-0.10- Fair 15
o
> 0.10Poor 5
oCM/PM <3.0 (Corrective Maint Hrs/Preventive Maint Hrs)- Indices of
effectiveness of Preventive Maintenance program
o
<3.0
Good 30
o
3.0-5.0 Fair 20
o
>5.0
Poor 10
oSpace standards (Avg 210 SF/FTE)
o
Avg +/- 10% of county standard
Good 20
o
Avg >10%<20% of county standard
Fair 15
o
Avg > 20%+/- county standard
Poor 5
o Age
o
Under 25 years Good 20
o
25-40
Fair 10
o
>40
Poor 0
Or
Can Meet ZNE requirement?
o
Yes
Good 20
o
Yes with improvements
Fair 10
o
No
Poor 0
Financial Attributes
EUI Rating- xx.x; yy.y % >National Median
o
75%-100% Greater
25
o
50%-75% Greater
15
o
25%-50% Greater
10
o
<25% Greater
5
score –
O&M/CRV (annual CM+PM+MM $/Current Replacement Value)
o
< 4.0 %
Good 25
o
4.0-6.0 %
Fair
15
o
>6.0 %
Poor
0
Benchmark O&M (Whitestone Facility Operations Cost Reference)/ Actual Bldg
O&M
o
0.0-0.5
Good 50
o
0.5-1.0
Fair
25
o
> 1.0
Poor
0
Or
Rent $/SF (subject to regional market benchmarks-BM)
o
Under $BM/SFGood 50
o
>$BM/SF<$1.25xBM/SF
Fair 30
o
>$1.25xBM/SF
Poor
0
15
Program Quadrant
Program Attributes score –
o Space Utilization- Max-30
o Good
25 -30
o Average
15-25
o Fair
5-15
o Poor
<5
o Logistical- Max- 20
o Good
o Fair
o Average
o Poor
15-20
10-15
5-10
<5
o Environmental- Max- 20
o Good
15-20
o Fair
10-15
o Average
5-10
o Poor
<5
o Safety- Max-30
o Good
o Average
o Fair
o
25 -30
15-25
5-15
Poor <5
16
Facilities Quadrant
Facilities Attributes
score –
o FCI (Deficiency $/Replacement Value)
o 0.0-0.05Good 30
o > 0.05-0.10- Fair 15
o > 0.10Poor 5
o CM/PM <3.0 (Corrective Maint Hrs/Preventive Maint Hrs)- Indices of
effectiveness of Preventive Maintenance program
o <3.0
Good 30
o 3.0-5.0 Fair 20
o >5.0
Poor 10
o Space standards (Avg 210 SF/FTE)
o Avg +/- 10% of county standard
Good 20
o Avg >10%<20% of county standard
Fair 15
+/o Avg > 20% county standard
Poor 5
o Age
o Under 25 years Good 20
o 25-40
Fair 10
o >40
Poor 0
Or
 Can Meet ZNE requirement?
o Yes
Good 20
o Yes with improvements
Fair 10
o No
Poor 0
17
Financial Quadrant
Financial Attributes
EUI Rating- xx.x ; yy.y >National Median
o 75%-100% Greater
25
o 50%-75% Greater
15
o 25%-50% Greater
10
o <25% Greater
5
score –
O&M/CRV (annual CM+PM+MM $/Current Replacement Value)
o < 4.0 %
Good 25
o 4.0-6.0 %
Fair 15
o >6.0 %
Poor
0
Benchmark O&M (Whitestone Facility Operations Cost Reference)/ Actual Bldg
O&M
o 0.0-0.5
Good 50
o 0.5-1.0
Fair 25
o > 1.0
Poor
0
Or
Rent $/SF (subject to regional market benchmarks-$BM/SF)
o Under $BM/SFGood 50
o >$BM/SF<$1.25xBM/SF
Fair 30
o >$1.25xBM/SF
Poor
0
18
Site Quadrant
score –
Site Attributes
Current Use Permit Valid –
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
15
0
Sufficient parking for Staff10
0
Clients10
0
Location favorable for- Workforce
10
0
Clients
10
0
Safe/secure location
10
0
Public transit available
10
0
Potential disposition:
Expansion
15
Resale opportunity
10
Constrained
0
Compatible affinities near-by
Y 10
N
0
19
Dashboard
20
Pilot Facilities
Ohio St. Adult Probation Services
• 52 year old 22,200 SF structure; 106 staff with over
37,800 clients/visitors annually
• 2 floors, limited ADA accessibility on 1st floor only
• Limited parking
• Neighborhood undergoing revitalization and growth
• $500K major internal space remodel need identified
• Changes in program delivery methods since original
construction
Ohio St. Adult Probation Services
23
Ohio St. Adult Probation Services
24
Ohio St. Adult Probation Services
Several options for evaluation
• Demo existing, rebuild on site:
• Concerns- Limited parking on site; changing community, existing zoning;
interim lease facilities needed during construction; longer project time
• Favorable- Existing use permit; new sustainable building; program delivery
efficiency; centrally located
• Remodel existing building:
• Concerns- Changing community, existing zoning; interim lease facilities
needed during construction; parking still a problem; Longer project time
• Favorable- Centrally located; ; new sustainable building; program delivery
efficiency
• Acquire land, build new:
• Concerns- Location (availability, cost, zoning/use permit)
• Favorable- New sustainable building; program delivery efficiency; adequate
parking; dispose existing Ohio St site
25
Ohio St. Adult Probation Services
• Buy new building:
• Concerns- Location (availability, cost, zoning/use permit)
• Favorable- Program delivery efficiency; adequate parking; dispose existing
Ohio St site
• Lease existing facility:
• Concerns- Location (availability, cost, zoning/use permit); TI cost;
• Favorable- Program delivery efficiency; adequate parking; dispose existing
Ohio St site
• Public-Private Partnership
• Concerns- Location (availability, cost, zoning/use permit); financing availability
• Favorable- Developer assumes risk; dispose existing Ohio Street site
• Recapitalize existing building
• Concerns- Community opposition; ADA upgrades may impact efficient space
utilization; lack of parking
• Favorable- Less expensive;
Recommendation
Real Estate Services be authorized to initiate site search for purchase of
land or structure. Search area compatible with client distribution mapping
1. For vacant site, develop project for new construction of 22,200 SF facility.
• ROM- Land
Total Project
$2.0-$3.0 M
$6.9 M (Construction $5.1 M)
2. For existing facility, develop project for rehab and improvement to meet
program requirements.
• ROM- Building
TI’s
$4.0-$6.0 M
$1.4-$1.8 M
Include Project in FY 15/16-19/20 Capital Improvements Need
Assessment for Board approval in Spring 2015
Next Steps
• Refine and validate measures
• Validate surveys questions across several departments
• Gather facility metrics and validate consistent basis
• Socialize the tools with departments
• Expand pilot program for the FY15-16 Capital Program
CGSA Conference 2014
San Diego, CA
Facility Effectiveness Assessment Tool
Department of General Services
County of San Diego