CAMPUS FACILITIES OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESSFINAL DRAFT FOR JUNE 6TH, 2012

PREPARED BY: CAMPUS FACILITIES PLANNING GROUP

PREPARED FOR: FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DRAFT

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

Timeline & Key Milestones

We Are Here

Setting the Stage

DRAFT

2002 20120

5,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000

SF Assigned Per Cus-todian

SF Assigned Per Custodian

2002 20120

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

SF Assigned Per Trades Worker

SF Assigned Per Trades Worker

2002 2012100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Custodial Workforce FTE

Custodial Work-force FTE

2002 20120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Trades Workforce FTE

Trades Workforce FTE

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 1Highest 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

DRAFT

Level 1Tier 1

Level 1Tier 2

Level 1Tier 3

Level 1 Highest quality maintenance areas on campusTier 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 LawnTier 3 – Lower visibility/low traffic – Marine biology; Commencement Green; Faculty Club; University Plaza Circle; Santa Ynez

Samples of Service Standards in Grounds

DRAFT

Level 2

Level 3

Level 2 – Moderate quality maintenance areas with moderate visibility and trafficExamples – 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

Grounds OE Strategies To-Date1. 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 Goals1. 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

Recommended Strategies

3. Additional equipment investment for mechanized sweeping

4. Converting backpack blowing to sweeper reduces need to add additional staff and has environmental advantages

5. Increase in field supervision by adding Grounds Supervisor FTE

6. Establish an annual landscape renewal fund

DRAFT

Benefits

1. 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

2. 1.5 FTE would be freed up to focus on landscape maintenance and improvements

3. Dramatically reduce operation of backpack blowers, which use a highly polluting 2-cycle gas/oil blend to operate

4. Dramatic reduction in airborne dust particulates

5. 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 cansc) 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

DRAFT

Level 4 Sample – Extreme Wear & Tear

Improving Academic Space Appearance Standards1. 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

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 Strategies① 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] $1,630,504• FY 2013-14 [Year 2] $1,718,049• FY 2014-15 [Year 3 and forward] $1,805,594

DRAFT

MAINTENANCE

DRAFT

MAINTENANCEPlanning 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

DRAFT

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

General Maintenance

Moderate Renewal

Comprehensive Renewal

Building Replacement

Predicted Building System Life Cycle

Sub-System Life Cycle

Roofing 25 Years

Building Exteriors, Doors, Windows 30 Years

Elevators and Conveying Systems 25 Years

HVAC – Equipment/Controls 30 Years

HVAC – Distribution Systems 50 Years

Electrical Equipment 25 Years

Plumbing Fixtures 30 Years

Fire Protection Systems 40 Years

Interior Finishes: Walls, Floors, Doors 15 Years

Painting: Public Areas 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 $ 20,750,000 5 percentBuilding Exteriors, Doors, Windows $ 33,200,000 8 percentElevators and Conveying Systems $ 16,600,000 4 percentHVAC-Equipment/Controls $ 53,950,000 13 percentHVAC-Distribution Systems $ 12,450,000 3 percentElectrical—Equipment$ 74,700,000 18 percentPlumbing Fixtures $ 24,900,000 6 percentFire Protection $ 4,150,000 1 percentBuilt-in Equipment & Specialties $ 87,150,000 21 percentInterior Finishes: Walls, Floors, Doors $ 45,650,000 11 percentPainting—Public Areas $ 4,150,000 1 percentAll Renewal—Small Basic $ 20,750,000 5 percentAll Renewal—Small Complex $ 16,600,000 4 percent

Grand Total Backlog $415,000,000

DRAFT

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

CR

V (

in $

Mill

ion

s)

Current Replacement ValueState Supported Space Only

CRV $1,917 $2,471 $2,598

Santa Cruz Caltech Santa Barbara

DRAFT

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

DM

Ba

ck

log

(in

$M

illio

ns

)Deferred Maintenance Backlog

State Supported Space Only

Backlog $127 $200 $415

Santa Cruz Caltech Santa Barbara

DRAFT

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

Ex

pe

nd

itu

res

pe

r M

GS

F

Deferred MaintenanceState Supported Space Only

Deferred Maint $0.27 $0.50 $3.91

Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Caltech

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]

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

DRAFT

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

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

DRAFT

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]4.Merge Operations Service Center operations, pending resolution of

space, infrastructure, and staffing considerations

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] $2,794,784• FY 2013-14 [Year 2] $5,289,472• FY 2014-15 [Year 3 and forward] $5,855,380

DRAFT

Cost Summary for All Facilities Improvements• FY 2012-13 [Year 1] $5,446,820

• Renewal & Renovation Funding: $3,580,000• Increase in Operating Budget:

$1,866,820

• FY 2013-14 [Year 2] $7,762,364• Renewal & Renovation Funding: $5,080,000• Increase in Operating Budget:

$2,682,364

• FY 2014-15 [Year 3 and forward] $9,263,908• Renewal & Renovation Funding: $6,080,000• Increase in Operating Budget:

$3,183,908

• Projected Net Savings on Spend: ($300,000)• Permanent Bridge Fund Replacement: $1,100,000

Net Total Cost in Year 3 $10,063,908

DRAFT

Our Proposal in Perspective…

FINAL DRAFT

2002 2012 20150

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

SF Assigned Per Custodian

SF Assigned Per Cus-todian

2002 2012 20150

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

SF Assigned Per Trades Worker

SF Assigned Per Trades Worker

2002 2012 2015100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Custodial Workforce FTE

Custodial Workforce FTE

2002 2012 20150

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Trades Workforce FTE

Trades Workforce FTE