1 / 33

Estates Committee

Estates Committee. 13 th February 2009. LICA building. Estates Committee. 13 th February 2009. Project updates. 13 th February 2009. Estates Committee. 13 th February 2009. Condition Survey.

yana
Download Presentation

Estates Committee

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. Estates Committee 13th February 2009

  2. LICA building

  3. Estates Committee 13th February 2009

  4. Project updates 13th February 2009

  5. Estates Committee 13th February 2009

  6. Condition Survey • A company called Property Tectonics were commissioned to carry out a condition survey of the campus according to RICS criteria. • Importantly, Phase V Residences were excluded from the survey, as were all UPP buildings. This fact has a significant bearing on the following figures:

  7. Building Condition Non Residential Residential

  8. Building Condition Definitions of condition ratings (RICS): A As new condition B Sound, operationally safe and exhibiting only minor deterioration C Operational, but major repair or replacement needed in the short to medium term (generally 3 years) D Inoperable, or at serious risk of major failure or breakdown Non Residential Residential

  9. Building Condition Non Residential Residential

  10. Building Condition – Cost to upgrade

  11. Functional Suitability Non Residential Residential

  12. Functional Suitability Definitions of functional suitability ratings (HEFCE): 1 Excellent; the rooms/buildings fully support current functions. (highly suitable) 2 Good; the rooms/buildings provide a good environment for the current function in all or most respects. (suitable) 3 Fair; the rooms/buildings provide a reasonable environment for current functions in many respects, but has a number of shortfalls. (generally unsuitable) 4 Poor; the rooms/buildings fail to support current functions and/or are unsuitable for current use. (very unsuitable) Non Residential Residential

  13. Functional Suitability Non Residential Residential

  14. Construction Date Non Residential Residential

  15. Construction Date

  16. Live Planon Demonstration 13th February 2009

  17. Estates Committee 13th February 2009

  18. Benchmarking Study • GTFM were commissioned by Lancaster University and Universities X, Y and Z to provide a departmental operational review at each University. • Three stages of work were identified within the brief. GTFM have been commissioned to carry out the first stage: a benchmarking exercise. • The benchmarking exercise involved the four Universities, commercial organisations, industry standards and HEFCE figures. • Data gathered through on-site investigations and information gathering exercises. • Areas included within the review include: Estates maintenance disciplines; quality of service measures; unit costs; health and safety; energy; waste, sickness absenteeism; estates strategy, procurement strategy and review of SLA’s.

  19. Benchmarking Study Like for like comparison • To make comparisons against Universities equal, a base level of 150,000m² was used. • The base level was achieved by factoring up or down from the current occupied area of the Universities campuses.

  20. Benchmarking Study The Comparisons Made • FM Costs – Cost per annum • Resource Levels • Workload per operative comparator • Supervisor to Operative Ratio • Absence rate – Work related and Un Work related • Energy Usage • Authorisation Limits • Stores

  21. Benchmarking Study FM Costs • Universities’ FM costs include both in house costs and contractors costs. • Capital costs and major replacement costs have not been included within the review. • Universities’ FM Costs have been benchmarked against the annual FM cost and calculated labour rates. • To ensure that the benchmark was comparable; the GTFM benchmark has not compared rates where costs have not been provided by all of the Universities.

  22. Benchmarking Study Benchmark Costs – The Source • Sources of FM benchmark costs included: • Oais Academy (London) • Paisley University • PFI Contracts (NHS and Education) • BBC • Recent major public sector outsourced FM contracts • RICS • NAO • HEFCE • Borough of Oadby & Wigston Council

  23. Benchmarking Study FM Costs • Lancaster University is in the upper benchmark range • The upper range is generated from properties receiving high standards of service • A performance review was not carried out during the review so the level of service cannot be validated

  24. Benchmarking Study Total Resource Levels • Resource per 150,000m² - All staff grades • Lancaster have the second lowest resource levels of the Universities within the Review. It should be noted that Lancaster did exclude post and portering staff • Resource for Hard FM Services are comparable with all of the Universities within the Review • Resource for Soft FM is lower than the all other Universities within the Review • “Other” includes; Support Services; Admin; Transport; AV Services and Soft FM (ancillary services)

  25. Benchmarking Study Management Resource Levels per 150,000m² • Lancaster has one of the lowest Manager resource levels of all the Universities within the review • “Other” includes; Support Services; Admin; Transport; AV Services and Soft FM (ancillary services)

  26. Benchmarking Study Workload Comparator - Cleaning • Lancaster has the highest area cleaned per hour per operative than all other Universities within the review

  27. Benchmarking Study Utilities Usage

  28. Benchmarking Study Conclusion and next steps • Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) need to be reviewed, updated and communicated across the University. • The planned maintenance regime needs to be reviewed. • The use of multi-skilled operatives should be considered. • The Estates Strategy should be reviewed in line with the new University Strategy, and it should include a review of the investment plan. • Consultation with staff is already underway.

  29. Estates Committee 13th February 2009

  30. EMS Return • Each year, all Universities are asked to make a data return to HEFCE which covers many aspects of estate management for the previous academic year. • The new Business Support section in Estate Management has been responsible for collating the data for this year’s return (2007/8). • The quality of our data is improving, and involving the Business Support Team has provided a focus for improving the data we hold in Estate Management.

  31. EMS Return - Key Estate Ratios

  32. EMS Return - Summary • The quality of data in the latest return is better than ever, though improvement areas have been identified for next year. • Energy costs have leapt up and will continue to do so in next year’s return, despite reductions in consumption. • Total property costs are below the sector average. A major factor is our below-average expenditure on maintenance. To continue improving the condition of our buildings, further investment in maintenance will be required.

  33. Estates Committee 13th February 2009

More Related