DRAFT
CAMPUS FACILITIES
OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
FINAL DRAFT FOR JUNE 6TH, 2012
PREPARED BY: CAMPUS FACILITIES PLANNING GROUP
PREPARED FOR: FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Timeline & Key Milestones
We
Are
Here
March 20th & April 19th, 2012
• CFPG held two planning retreats to develop several organizational
models that merge or co-locate functions to streamline and improve
service delivery
May 21st, 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 4th, 2012
• Final CFPG planning retreat to finalize recommendations
June 6th, 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
DRAFT
Setting the Stage
Custodial Workforce FTE
130
SF Assigned Per Custodian
40,000
35,000
125
30,000
120
25,000
115
Custodial
Workforce FTE
110
20,000
SF Assigned Per
Custodian
15,000
10,000
105
5,000
100
0
2002
2012
2002
Trades Workforce FTE
SF Assigned Per Trades
Worker
70
60
2012
120,000
50
100,000
40
Trades
Workforce FTE
30
20
80,000
60,000
SF Assigned Per
Trades Worker
40,000
10
20,000
0
2002
2012
0
2002
2012
DRAFT
GROUNDS
DRAFT
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
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
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
Samples of Service Standards in Grounds
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; Women’s 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
DRAFT
Samples of Service Standards in Grounds
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
DRAFT
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
Recommended Strategies to Improve
Grounds Appearance
Identified Service Level Goals
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
1.
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
Benefits
1. Saving of 1.5 FTE by transitioning from 16 backpack
2.
3.
4.
5.
blowers requiring 90 man hrs/week to Sweeper
Operator for 34 acres of plaza space and walkways
1.5 FTE would be freed up to focus on landscape
maintenance and improvements
Dramatically reduce operation of backpack blowers,
which use a highly polluting 2-cycle gas/oil blend to
operate
Dramatic reduction in airborne dust particulates
New Sweeper could be either high-efficiency Tier 3
Diesel or Electric, a vast environmental improvement
over blowers
DRAFT
Recommended Grounds OE Strategies
① 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
Recommended Grounds OE Strategies
② 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
Recommended Grounds OE Strategies
③ 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
Cost Summary for Grounds Improvements
① Sweeper Purchase Cost:
$100,000
② Annual Sweeper Maintenance:
$10,000
③ Grounds Supervisor:
$78,316
④ Annual Landscape Renewal Fund: $300,000
Represents a $300 per acre annual spend
• FY 2012-13 [Year 1]
$488,316
• FY 2013-14 [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
CUSTODIAL & HOUSEKEEPING
DRAFT
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
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
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
Level 4 Sample – Extreme Wear & Tear
DRAFT
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 PFmaintained buildings would be maintained at Level 2 standard
DRAFT
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
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
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
Recommended Custodial OE Strategies
① 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
Cost Summary for Custodial Improvements
① Deep Cleaning Crew [8 FTE]:
$550,416
② 4 Custodial Supervisors:
$350,176
③ Bathroom Renovation Cycle:
$780,000
④ Annual Window Cleaning:
$125,000
• FY 2012-13 [Year 1]
• FY 2013-14 [Year 2]
• FY 2014-15 [Year 3 and forward]
$1,630,504
$1,718,049
$1,805,594
DRAFT
MAINTENANCE
DRAFT
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
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
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
Modified APPA Maintenance Service Levels
• Level 1: Showpiece Facility
• Level 2: Comprehensive Stewardship
• Level 3: Managed Care
• Level 4: Reactive Management
DRAFT
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
Deteriorating Roof
Old Piping Systems with Exposed
Asbestos Insulation
Corroded HVAC Piping
Old HVAC Equipment
Corroded HVAC Air Intakes
Dilapidated Cooling Tower
Deteriorated Air Handler
UCSB’s Buildings by Age
and Level of Renewal
Number of Buildings by Age
30
28
25
20
Number
of
15
21
15
16
10
10
10
20 to 30
30 to 40
10
5
0
0 to 10
10 to 20
40 to 50
50 to 60
>60
Age (Years)
General
Maintenance
Moderate
Renewal
Comprehensive
Renewal
Building
Replacement
Predicted Building System Life Cycle
Sub-System
Life Cycle
Roofing
Building Exteriors, Doors, Windows
Elevators and Conveying Systems
HVAC – Equipment/Controls
25 Years
30 Years
25 Years
30 Years
HVAC – Distribution Systems
Electrical Equipment
Plumbing Fixtures
50 Years
25 Years
30 Years
Fire Protection Systems
Interior Finishes: Walls, Floors, Doors
Painting: Public Areas
40 Years
15 Years
15 Years
Pacific Partners Consulting Group
Facilities Infrastructure Renewal Model
(PF) Backlog Renewal Funding
UCSB Deferred Maintenance (DM) Report by Subsystems (2012)
Subsystem
Total Campus DM
Percent of Total
Roofing
Building Exteriors, Doors, Windows
Elevators and Conveying Systems
HVAC-Equipment/Controls
HVAC-Distribution Systems
Electrical—Equipment
Plumbing Fixtures
Fire Protection
Built-in Equipment & Specialties
Interior Finishes: Walls, Floors, Doors
Painting—Public Areas
All Renewal—Small Basic
All Renewal—Small Complex
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5 percent
8 percent
4 percent
13 percent
3 percent
18 percent
6 percent
1 percent
21 percent
11 percent
1 percent
5 percent
4 percent
Grand Total Backlog
$415,000,000
20,750,000
33,200,000
16,600,000
53,950,000
12,450,000
74,700,000
24,900,000
4,150,000
87,150,000
45,650,000
4,150,000
20,750,000
16,600,000
DRAFT
Current Replacement Value
State Supported Space Only
$3,000
CRV (in $Millions)
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
CRV
Sant a C r uz
C alt ech
Sant a B ar b ar a
$1,9 17
$2 ,4 71
$2 ,59 8
DRAFT
Deferred Maintenance Backlog
State Supported Space Only
$450
DM Backlog (in $Millions)
$400
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
B acklo g
Sant a C r uz
C alt ech
Sant a B ar b ar a
$12 7
$2 0 0
$4 15
DRAFT
Deferred Maintenance
State Supported Space Only
$4.00
Expenditures per MGSF
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
D ef er r ed M aint
Sant a B ar b ar a
Sant a C r uz
C alt ech
$0 .2 7
$0 .50
$3 .9 1
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]
DRAFT
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
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
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
① 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
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
DRAFT
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
② 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
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
③ Recommend a phased approach to creating a ‘Unified
Central Dispatch’ function
Phase I [2012-13 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 [2013-14 FY]
1.Merge Operations Service Center operations, pending resolution of
space, infrastructure, and staffing considerations
DRAFT
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
④ 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
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
⑤ 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
Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies
⑥ 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
Cost Summary for Maintenance Improvements
① Enhanced PM Schedule:
$855,380 by Year 3
② Deferred Maintenance Budget:
$5M by Year 3
[Phased approach: $2.5M Y1; $4M Y2; $5M Y3]
• FY 2012-13 [Year 1]
• FY 2013-14 [Year 2]
• FY 2014-15 [Year 3 and forward]
$2,794,784
$5,289,472
$5,855,380
DRAFT
Cost Summary for All Facilities Improvements
• FY 2012-13 [Year 1]
• Renewal & Renovation Funding:
• Increase in Operating Budget:
• FY 2013-14 [Year 2]
• Renewal & Renovation Funding:
• Increase in Operating Budget:
$5,446,820
$3,580,000
$1,866,820
$7,762,364
$5,080,000
$2,682,364
• FY 2014-15 [Year 3 and forward]
$9,263,908
• Renewal & Renovation Funding:
$6,080,000
$3,183,908
• Increase in Operating Budget:
• Projected Net Savings on Spend:
• Permanent Bridge Fund Replacement:
Net Total Cost in Year 3
($300,000)
$1,100,000
$10,063,908
FINAL DRAFT
Our Proposal in Perspective…
SF Assigned Per Custodian
Custodial Workforce FTE
45,000
130
40,000
125
35,000
30,000
120
25,000
115
Custodial
Workforce FTE
SF Assigned Per
Custodian
20,000
15,000
110
10,000
105
5,000
0
100
2002
2012
2002
2015
Trades Workforce FTE
60
50
120,000
40
100,000
Trades Workforce
FTE
2015
SF Assigned Per Trades
Worker
70
30
2012
80,000
60,000
20
SF Assigned Per
Trades Worker
40,000
10
20,000
0
2002
2012
2015
0
2002
2012
2015