1 / 29

Facility Effectiveness Assessment Tool

Facility Effectiveness Assessment Tool. CGSA Conference 2014 San Diego, CA. Department of General Services County of San Diego. Portfolio Management. <30 years. 30 to 50. >50 years. Area in sq ft. Non-Historic 902.7 ksf. Historic 641 ksf. Year of measure. 2.

adler
Télécharger la présentation

Facility Effectiveness Assessment Tool

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Facility Effectiveness Assessment Tool CGSA Conference 2014 San Diego, CA • Department of General Services • County of San Diego

  2. Portfolio Management <30 years 30 to 50 >50 years Area in sq ft Non-Historic 902.7 ksf Historic 641 ksf Year of measure 2

  3. A basis for strategic facilities decisions • Recapitalization - Replacement of building subsystems • Renewal - Improvement, addition or expansion of facilities • Replacement - Relocation or new construction 3

  4. 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

  5. Potential Performance Measures

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Affinity Grouping Performance Indicators

  10. 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 • Age- • 1) New, old, historical; • 2) Code compliant • Original or expansion 10

  11. 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

  12. 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. • All 2-story office buildings • Between 20,000 and 50,000 SF • Between 5 and 50 years old. • Team members • HHSA Facilities Manager • General Services Capital Planning staff • General Services Real Estate Services staff • General Services Facilities Operations staff • General Services Space Planning staff • General Services Financial Management staff 12

  13. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats 13

  14. SWOT Affinity Groupings 14

  15. Facilities Effectiveness Assessment Matrix 15

  16. Program Quadrant • Program Attributesscore – • Space Utilization- Max-30 • Good 25 -30 • Average 15-25 • Fair 5-15 • Poor <5 • Logistical- Max- 20 • Good 15-20 • Fair 10-15 • Average 5-10 • Poor <5 • Environmental- Max- 20 • Good 15-20 • Fair 10-15 • Average 5-10 • Poor <5 • Safety- Max-30 • Good 25 -30 • Average 15-25 • Fair 5-15 • Poor <5 16

  17. Facilities Quadrant • Facilities Attributes score – • FCI (Deficiency $/Replacement Value) • 0.0-0.05- Good 30 • > 0.05-0.10- Fair 15 • > 0.10- Poor 5 • CM/PM <3.0 (Corrective Maint Hrs/Preventive Maint Hrs)- Indices of effectiveness of Preventive Maintenance program • <3.0 Good 30 • 3.0-5.0 Fair 20 • >5.0 Poor 10 • Space standards (Avg 210 SF/FTE) • Avg +/- 10% of county standard Good 20 • Avg >10%<20% of county standard Fair 15 • Avg >20%+/- county standard Poor 5 • Age • Under 25 years Good 20 • 25-40 Fair 10 • >40 Poor 0 • Or • Can Meet ZNE requirement? • Yes Good 20 • Yes with improvements Fair 10 • No Poor 0 17

  18. Financial Quadrant • Financial Attributes score – • EUI Rating- xx.x ; yy.y >National Median • 75%-100% Greater 25 • 50%-75% Greater 15 • 25%-50% Greater 10 • <25% Greater 5 • O&M/CRV (annual CM+PM+MM $/Current Replacement Value) • < 4.0 % Good 25 • 4.0-6.0 % Fair 15 • >6.0 % Poor 0 • Benchmark O&M (Whitestone Facility Operations Cost Reference)/ Actual Bldg O&M • 0.0-0.5 Good 50 • 0.5-1.0 Fair 25 • > 1.0 Poor 0 • Or • Rent $/SF (subject to regional market benchmarks-$BM/SF) • Under $BM/SF- Good 50 • >$BM/SF<$1.25xBM/SF Fair 30 • >$1.25xBM/SF Poor 0 18

  19. Site Quadrant • Site Attributes score – • 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 Y 10 • N 0 • Clients Y 10 • N 0 • Safe/secure location 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 19

  20. Dashboard 20

  21. Pilot Facilities

  22. 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

  23. Ohio St. Adult Probation Services 23

  24. Ohio St. Adult Probation Services 24

  25. 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

  26. 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;

  27. Recommendation • Real Estate Services be authorized to initiate site search for purchase of land or structure. Search area compatible with client distribution mapping • For vacant site, develop project for new construction of 22,200 SF facility. • ROM- Land $2.0-$3.0 M • Total Project $6.9 M (Construction $5.1 M) • 2. For existing facility, develop project for rehab and improvement to meet program requirements. • ROM- Building $4.0-$6.0 M • TI’s $1.4-$1.8 M • Include Project in FY 15/16-19/20 Capital Improvements Need Assessment for Board approval in Spring 2015

  28. 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

  29. Facility Effectiveness Assessment Tool CGSA Conference 2014 San Diego, CA • Department of General Services • County of San Diego

More Related