1 / 59

CAMPUS FACILITIES OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS final draft for June 6th, 2012

CAMPUS FACILITIES OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS final draft for June 6th, 2012. PREPARED BY: CAMPUS FACILITIES PLANNING GROUP PREPARED FOR: FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Timeline & Key Milestones. March 20 th & April 19 th , 2012

redford
Download Presentation

CAMPUS FACILITIES OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS final draft for June 6th, 2012

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. DRAFT CAMPUS FACILITIES OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESSfinal draft for June 6th, 2012 PREPARED BY: CAMPUS FACILITIES PLANNING GROUP PREPARED FOR: FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

  2. Timeline & Key Milestones 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 We Are Here

  3. DRAFT Setting the Stage

  4. DRAFT grounds

  5. DRAFT GROUNDS Planning Group Objectives • Adopt a shared standard and metric for all of grounds • Define ‘Tier System’ of Service Levels & Service Goals • Identify Operational Effectiveness Strategies To-Date and Recommendations Moving Forward

  6. 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)

  7. DRAFT Define Service Level Tiers • Identified 3 Service Levels & Tiers for Maintained Acreage • Level 1 : Highest quality maintenance [~ 45% of total acreage] • 3 Tiers of Service within Level 1 [See next slide] • Level 2 : Moderate level of maintenance [~ 50% of total acreage] • Around Residence Halls; Campus Buildings • Level 3 : Natural area that is not developed [~ 5% of total acreage] • Lagoon Road; Rear of Marine Lab

  8. 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

  9. 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 Colegioroad 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

  10. DRAFT Grounds OE Strategies To-Date • Redistribute acreage between departments to optimize grounds staff productivity • Combine Pest Control Contract, in partnership with Purchasing, to realize over 25% savings annually (~ $50K total) • FM and H&RS get diesel fuel at FM grounds yard • Both Grounds units collaborate on areas of Campus high priority areas like the Commencement Green or Campus Entrances • Both Grounds departments share equipment as needed (Planning to start sharing shop equipment repair facilities as needed) • Both Grounds departments have been available to assist each other with labor as needed on projects or emergencies

  11. 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] • For Level 2 Baseline : Decrease from 50% to 45% of Maintained Acreage Recommended Strategies • Additional equipment investment for mechanized sweeping • Converting backpack blowing to sweeper reduces need to add additional staff and has environmental advantages • Increase in field supervision by adding Grounds Supervisor FTE • Establish an annual landscape renewal fund

  12. DRAFT Benefits • Saving of 1.5 FTE by transitioning from 16 backpack 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

  13. DRAFT Recommended Grounds OE Strategies • Adopt Campus Landscape & Design Guidelines Benefits: • Create a consistent and visually unified landscape • Reduce repetitive injuries and unsafe maintenance situations • Reduce watering • Reduce maintenance time

  14. DRAFT Recommended Grounds OE Strategies • Operate as ‘Gaucho Grounds’, a Unified Grounds Department with Two Divisions How? • Conduct shared training programs and events • Hold shared BBQ/Social Events • 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

  15. DRAFT Recommended Grounds OE Strategies • Mechanizing the grounds maintenance workflow to improve efficiency How? • Formalize sequencing of edging, mowing and pavement sweeping • Reduce outside refuse cans • Explore shift change from 5am to 6am

  16. DRAFT Cost Summary for Grounds Improvements • Sweeper Purchase Cost: $100,000 • Annual Sweeper Maintenance: $10,000 • Grounds Supervisor: $78,316 • 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

  17. DRAFT Custodial & housekeeping

  18. DRAFT CUSTODIAL Planning Group Objectives • Adopt a shared standard and metric for all Custodial/Housekeeping Services • Define Baseline Service Levels & Service Goals • Identify Operational Effectiveness Strategies To-Date and Recommendations Moving Forward

  19. 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

  20. DRAFT Defining Baseline Appearance Rating • At UCSB, We Range Between Level 2 and Level 4 • Level 2 : Ordinary Tidiness • Residential Hallways and Bathrooms • Student Health & Child Care Facilities* • New Buildings • Level 3 : Moderate wear and tear • Older Buildings • Level 4 : Extreme wear and tear • Oldest Buildings in Disrepair; Slated for Demolition *Should be maintained at Level 1

  21. Level 4 Sample – Extreme Wear & Tear

  22. DRAFT Improving Academic Space Appearance Standards • 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 PF-maintained buildings would be maintained at Level 2 standard

  23. DRAFT Improving Academic Space Appearance Standards • Deep Cleaning Improvements • 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] • Windows– 24 month cycle [Estimated cost: $125,000annually]

  24. 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.

  25. DRAFT Custodial OE Strategies To-Date • 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. • Centralized pest control contracting • Collaborate on investigating state of the art equipment. • Collaborate on and attend different trade shows

  26. DRAFT Recommended Custodial OE Strategies • 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: • Supervisory role provides greater management and oversight of custodians than Sr. Lead JD • Better oversight of workforce increases worker productivity

  27. DRAFT Cost Summary for Custodial Improvements • Deep Cleaning Crew [8 FTE]: $550,416 • 4 Custodial Supervisors: $350,176 • Bathroom Renovation Cycle: $780,000 • Annual Window Cleaning: $125,000 • FY 2012-13 [Year 1] $1,630,504 • FY 2013-14 [Year 2] $1,718,049 • FY 2014-15 [Year 3 and forward] $1,805,594

  28. DRAFT Maintenance

  29. DRAFT MAINTENANCE Planning Group Objectives • Define Baseline Preventative Maintenance Level, along with new Goal Standard • Define Work Ticket Service Goal Standard, Service Response Tiers, and Maintenance Service Levels • Define Current and Ideal Deferred Maintenance Strategy • Identify Operational Effectiveness Strategies and Recommendations Moving Forward

  30. 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

  31. 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%

  32. DRAFT Modified APPA Maintenance Service Levels • Level 1: Showpiece Facility • Level 2: Comprehensive Stewardship • Level 3: Managed Care • Level 4: Reactive Management

  33. 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

  34. Deteriorating Roof

  35. Old Piping Systems with Exposed Asbestos Insulation

  36. Corroded HVAC Piping

  37. Old HVAC Equipment

  38. Corroded HVAC Air Intakes

  39. Dilapidated Cooling Tower

  40. Deteriorated Air Handler

  41. UCSB’s Buildings by Age and Level of Renewal General Maintenance Moderate Renewal Comprehensive Renewal Building Replacement

  42. Predicted Building System Life Cycle Pacific Partners Consulting Group

  43. Facilities Infrastructure Renewal Model (PF) Backlog Renewal Funding UCSB Deferred Maintenance (DM) Report by Subsystems (2012) Subsystem Total Campus DM Percent of Total Roofing $ 20,750,000 5 percent Building Exteriors, Doors, Windows $ 33,200,000 8 percent Elevators and Conveying Systems $ 16,600,000 4 percent HVAC-Equipment/Controls $ 53,950,000 13 percent HVAC-Distribution Systems $ 12,450,000 3 percent Electrical—Equipment $ 74,700,000 18 percent Plumbing Fixtures $ 24,900,000 6 percent Fire Protection $ 4,150,000 1 percent Built-in Equipment & Specialties $ 87,150,000 21 percent Interior Finishes: Walls, Floors, Doors $ 45,650,000 11 percent Painting—Public Areas $ 4,150,000 1 percent All Renewal—Small Basic $ 20,750,000 5 percent All Renewal—Small Complex $ 16,600,000 4 percent Grand Total Backlog $415,000,000

  44. DRAFT

  45. DRAFT

  46. DRAFT

  47. 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]

  48. DRAFT Deferred Maintenance Recommendation Proposed Strategy: Increase Deferred Maintenance budget to $5 million annually Benefits • Enables us to manage 4-10 major DM projects annually in-house (e.g., roof replacements, elevator replacement) • Reduce risks of significant mechanical or structural failures that could negatively impact critical research • 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

  49. DRAFT Deferred Maintenance Recommendation Proposed Strategy: Recommend a $20-30M Building Renewal Program within the 5-Year Capital Budget Plan Rationale • Developing and funding a long-term renewal plan is vital to our campus operations. • Ensures a plan for long-term renewal of all major building components comprising the $415 million DM backlog • Failure to renew these building systems will compromise our research and academic missions.

  50. DRAFT Recommended Maintenance OE Strategies • 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

More Related