UFRAS University Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet 25 April 2012

1. UFRASUniversity Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet25 April 2012

2. Agenda • Outline UFRAS • Develop a brief understanding of how to use UFRAS • Develop an understanding of what to do with output from UFRAS • Go through each sheet of UFRAS • Explain input/results • Instruct users’ on how to input data • Present a synopsis of the function of each sheet

3. UFRAS • Objectively and consistently quantifies a risk index for facilities via a matrix

4. UFRAS • Facilitates quick and efficient comparison of risk across facilities • Conducts a hazard assessment and vulnerability assessment • Output highlights areas of weakness • Reinforces the suggestion for mitigation measures

5. Hazard Assessment • Evaluates the probability and intensity of the 9 potential hazards that could affect a campus • Data comes from reputable sources • ASCE 7-05 • NOAA • County flood maps • Inputs are normalized relative to hazard intensities across the continental United States • Inputs are largely static for each campus • Reference data unlikely to change; thus campuses should not need to adjust these inputs for future use

6. Hazard Assessment

7. Vulnerability Assessment • Conducted via site visits, discussion with facility personnel, review of drawings/documents • Inspection checklist is completed while conducting inspection • 1-5 hours to complete, depending on size/complexity of facility • Facility conditions change over time, thus the need to reevaluate facilities periodically

8. Inspection Checklist • Divided into 5 sections—based on facility components; it is the first 5 sheets in UFRAS • 92 total questions/statements • 910 permutations to produce final matrix • Inspector assigns ratings (usually 1-4) for each question/statement which are input for risk calculation • Unanswered questions/statements are omitted from risk index calculation

9. Results • 1 represents lowest risk • 10 represents highest risk • Matrix is normalized by campus

10. Results

11. Analysis • Based on output from UFRAS: • Highlights areas of weakness in facility components relative to hazards • Mitigation measures can be tailored for the weaker areas in the facility • Once mitigation measures are suggested • Inspection checklist may be modified to reflect lower vulnerability • Second matrix is concurrently produced projecting new lower risk

12. Overview of UFRAS sheets • 11 Total sheets • 5 sheets make up the inspection checklist • 1 sheet makes up the hazard assessment • 1 sheet concisely summarizes input data • 1 sheet allows users to modify ratings to reflect proposed mitigation measures • 1 sheet produces normalized output • 2 sheets produce raw output

13. Sheet 1: Site/General Checklist • 31 questions/statements pertaining to: • General facility design parameters • Site geography • Vegetation • Site improvements • Streets/roads • Fencing • Drainage infrastructure • Utilities on site • Storage tanks • Secondary/support structures

14. Sheet 2: Envelope Checklist • 19 Questions/statements pertaining to: • Windows and doors • Flashing • Closing mechanisms • Material • Veneer • Attachment, configuration, material • Foundation plane/lowest level floor plane • Building geometry • Roof system • Coping • Drainage

15. Sheet 3: Structure Checklist • 15 Questions/statements pertaining to: • Geometry of structure (plan and elevation) • Design loads • Structural system • Redundancies • Hybrid • Design era • Connections • Foundation • Construction type/materials

16. Sheet 4: Utilities Checklist • 14 Questions/statements pertaining to: • All utility systems within the facility • Telecommunications • Power • Gas • Water (potable, wastewater, roof drain lines) • Fire safety systems • Computing systems • Building controls • Security systems

17. Sheet 5: Contents Checklist • 13 Questions/statements pertaining to: • Occupants • Corridors, stairwells, exit routes • Furniture • Interior (non-structural) partition walls, flooring, doors, windows • Specialized equipment • Light fixtures • Elevators

18. Sheet 6: PI Input Values

19. Sheet 7: Final Output • Presents normalized risk index matrices • First set presents normalized relative to facility • As Inspected (AI) Matrix • Mitigation Measures (MM) Matrix—calculates new risk index with updated inputs that assume suggested mitigation measures are implemented • Second set presents normalized relative to campus • AI Matrix • MM Matrix • Third set presents normalized relative to sample space • AI Matrix • MM Matrix

20. Sheet 8: Summary of EV Inputs • Lists all 92 questions/statements with respective ratings in one place for ease of reference • 4 page printout • For review only; no modifications can/need to be made

21. Sheet 9: Insert Updated EV Values • Identical layout to Sheet 8 • Modify ratings in this sheet to reflect the lower vulnerability based on suggested mitigation measures • Anytime a rating is modified, an (*) appears to the right of the updated rating • This input is used to produce the “MM” matrix

22. Sheet 10: Output Printout (AI) • Displays the raw output from the input ratings • Contents of this sheet have minimal applicable use • Summarizes the hazard information • Presents an exposure and vulnerability matrix • Presents a raw risk index matrix • Range 0-1 where 0 is lowest risk; 1 is highest risk • All of which is used to produce normalized risk index matrices • Error message at the bottom of sheet is only item needed from this sheet • Error count tallies the number of times a rating outside range limits is input in sheets 1-5

23. Sheet 11: Output Printout (MM) • Identical in layout and function to Sheet 10 • Uses data from Sheet 9 (Updated EV Inputs) to produce a risk index matrix reflecting lower risk (assuming mitigation measures are implemented) • This data is used to produce the “MM” set of matrices • Error message at the bottom of sheet is only item needed from this sheet • Error count tallies the number of times a rating outside range limits is input in Sheet 9

24. IMPORTANT – Sheet 11:Output Printout (AI) • Cell F54 controls campus normalization • Set this cell equal to the maximum value within the cell range B43:S47 • Can be done with a master spreadsheet that links to other facilities on campus • Cell F55 controls sample space normalization • Set this cell equal to the maximum value within the sample space of raw risk index matrices • If the sample space is the campus, use the same value that was used in F54

25. Results • Output can be combined with UFIS results • Composite of objective importance and risk scores • Output can be combined with any measure of facility value/importance • Facilitates a better understanding of the results • Incorporates a loss measure • Combines risk and importance into one result • Must use raw risk scores • Raw risk scores present the most accurate result • Normalized risk scores do not have enough resolution to provide clear delineation of results

26. Exercise • Facility “A” has a raw risk score of 0.020 • Insured value of $4.8 million • UFIS score of 0.680 • Facility “B” has a raw risk score of 0.045 • Insured value of $3.5 million • UFIS score of 0.580 • Which facility should take priority in receiving mitigation measures?

27. Exercise • Facility “A” • 0.020 x $4.8 million = $0.096 million (Insured value) • 0.020 x 0.680 = .0136 (UFIS results) • Facility “B” • 0.045 x $3.5 million = $0.158 million (Insured value) • 0.045 x 0.580 = 0.0261 (UFIS results) • Facility “B” takes priority for mitigation measures based on composite score

28. Questions/Contact Brian Zapata 6302 Fairview Road, Suite 600 Charlotte, NC 28210 (704) 358-8240 - Phone (704) 358-8342 - Fax (888) 529-7243 bzapata@zapatainc.com http://www.zapatainc.com