Facility Effectiveness Assessment Facility Effectiveness Assessment ToolTool

Department of General ServicesCounty of San Diego

CGSA Conference 2014CGSA Conference 2014San Diego, CASan Diego, CA

Portfolio Management

2

<30 years >50 years

Historic 641 ksf

Are

a in

sq

ft

Year of measure

30 to 50

Non-Historic 902.7 ksf

A basis for strategic facilities decisions

Recapitalization - Replacement of building subsystems

Renewal - Improvement, addition or expansion of facilities

Replacement - Relocation or new construction

3

Implementation

4

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).

Potential Performance

Measures

Facilities Performance

6

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

Facilities Performance

7

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)

Facilities Performance

8

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.

Affinity Grouping Performance

Indicators

Affinity Grouping Performance Indicators

10

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

Affinity Grouping Performance Indicators

11

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 $

Process

12

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.o All 2-story office buildingso Between 20,000 and 50,000 SFo Between 5 and 50 years old.

• Team memberso HHSA Facilities Managero General Services Capital Planning staffo General Services Real Estate Services staffo General Services Facilities Operations staffo General Services Space Planning staffo General Services Financial Management staff

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

13

Strengths     Weaknesses   Opportunities     ThreatsLocation relative to client Age (Old) Real estate disposition (sale, new…) Indoor air quality issuesProximity to public transit Leased Value for potential sale Local gov't jurisdictional issuesEasily accessible Overcrowded Relocate "back of house" functions Potential hazardous exposureSufficient parking General building condittion Energy efficiency/LEED certification LocationTitle 24 standards Space utilization Entitlements Age- Historic?Age (New) Use density Neighborhood redevelopmentStreet appearence ADA complianceGeneral building condittion Insufficient parking

Construction methodSite stormwater/drainage issues

Owned site Constrained siteUpgraded MEP/infrastructure Location constraints

EntitlementsEnvironmentally Sensitive AreaGeneral site safety and securityPotential health hazardsCongested site/crowdedConstruction methodEnergy inefficiencyStreet accessibilityEntitlements

SWOT Affinity Groupings

14

Program/Function Efficiency Facility Attributes Site/Location Cost Effectiveness

ORelocate "back of house" functions W Use density    

S,W Owned/Leased site     S Title 24 standards

W Space utilization   W,S Entitlements   WCongested site/crowded   O

Energy efficiency/LEED certification

S Location relative to client W Environmentally Sensitive Area S Proximity to public transit   W Energy inefficiency

W Overcrowded   W Site stormwater/drainage issues W Street accessibility   OReal estate disposition (sale, new…)

OOccupancy   W Constrained site   S Easily accessible   O Value for potential sale

      W,TLocation (constraints)   O

Area demographics (past, trends, future) O,T O&M costs

      T Neighborhood redevelopment T,ONeighborhood development/re-development  

      W ADA compliance   S Location relative to client          T Local gov't jurisdictional issues            S,W Construction method              S,W General building condittion            S Upgraded MEP/infrastructure            S Street appearence              S,W Insufficient/Sufficient parking            T Indoor air quality issues            T Potential health hazards            W Potential hazardous exposure            W General site safety and security      

     S,W,T

Age (New, Old, Historic)        

Facilities Effectiveness Assessment Matrix

15

Program Attributes score –o Space Utilization- Max-30

o Good 25% -30% o Average 15%-25% o Fair 5%-15% o Poor 0%- 5%

o Logistical- Max- 20

o Good 15%-20%o Fair 10%-15%o Average 5%-10%o Poor <5%

 o Environmental- Max- 20

o Good 15%-20%o Fair 10%-15%o Average 5%-10%o Poor <5%

 oSafety- Max-30

o Good 25% -30% o Average 15%-25% o Fair 5%-15% o Poor 0%- 5%

Facilities Attributes score – oFCI (Deficiency $/Replacement Value)

o 0.0-0.05- Good 30o > 0.05-0.10- Fair 15o > 0.10- Poor 5

oCM/PM <3.0 (Corrective Maint Hrs/Preventive Maint Hrs)- Indices of effectiveness of Preventive Maintenance program

o <3.0 Good 30o 3.0-5.0 Fair 20o >5.0 Poor 10

oSpace standards (Avg 210 SF/FTE)o Avg +/- 10% of county standard Good 20o Avg >10%<20% of county standard Fair 15o Avg > 20%+/- county standard Poor 5

o Age o Under 25 years Good 20o 25-40 Fair 10o >40 Poor 0

OrCan Meet ZNE requirement?

o Yes Good 20o Yes with improvements Fair 10o No Poor 0

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 0Public transit available Y 10 N 0Potential disposition: Expansion 15 Resale opportunity 10 Constrained 0Compatible affinities near-by Y 10 N 0

Financial Attributes score –EUI Rating- xx.x; yy.y % >National Median

o 75%-100% Greater 25o 50%-75% Greater 15o 25%-50% Greater 10o <25% Greater 5

 O&M/CRV (annual CM+PM+MM $/Current Replacement Value)

o < 4.0 % Good 25o 4.0-6.0 % Fair 15o >6.0 % Poor 0

 Benchmark O&M (Whitestone Facility Operations Cost Reference)/ Actual Bldg O&M

o 0.0-0.5 Good 50o 0.5-1.0 Fair 25o > 1.0 Poor 0

OrRent $/SF (subject to regional market benchmarks-BM)

o Under $BM/SF- Good 50o >$BM/SF<$1.25xBM/SF Fair 30o >$1.25xBM/SF Poor 0

Program Quadrant

16

Program Attributes score –

o Space Utilization- Max-30 o Good 25 -30 o Average 15-25 o Fair 5-15 o Poor <5

o Logistical- Max- 20

o Good 15-20o Fair 10-15o Average 5-10o Poor <5

 o Environmental- Max- 20

o Good 15-20o Fair 10-15o Average 5-10o Poor <5

  o Safety- Max-30

o Good 25 -30 o Average 15-25 o Fair 5-15 o Poor <5

Facilities Quadrant

17

Facilities Attributes score – o FCI (Deficiency $/Replacement Value)

o 0.0-0.05- Good 30o > 0.05-0.10- Fair 15o > 0.10- Poor 5

o CM/PM <3.0 (Corrective Maint Hrs/Preventive Maint Hrs)- Indices of effectiveness of Preventive Maintenance program

o <3.0 Good 30o 3.0-5.0 Fair 20o >5.0 Poor 10

o Space standards (Avg 210 SF/FTE)o Avg +/- 10% of county standard Good 20o Avg >10%<20% of county standard Fair 15o Avg > 20%+/- county standard Poor 5

o Age o Under 25 years Good 20o 25-40 Fair 10o >40 Poor 0

Or Can Meet ZNE requirement?

o Yes Good 20o Yes with improvements Fair 10o No Poor 0

Financial Quadrant

18

Financial Attributes score –EUI Rating- xx.x ; yy.y >National Median

o 75%-100% Greater 25o 50%-75% Greater 15o 25%-50% Greater 10o <25% Greater 5

 O&M/CRV (annual CM+PM+MM $/Current Replacement Value)

o < 4.0 % Good 25o 4.0-6.0 % Fair 15o >6.0 % Poor 0

 Benchmark O&M (Whitestone Facility Operations Cost Reference)/ Actual Bldg O&M

o 0.0-0.5 Good 50o 0.5-1.0 Fair 25o > 1.0 Poor 0

OrRent $/SF (subject to regional market benchmarks-$BM/SF)

o Under $BM/SF- Good 50o >$BM/SF<$1.25xBM/SF Fair 30o >$1.25xBM/SF Poor 0

Site Quadrant

19

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 0Public transit available Y 10 N 0Potential disposition: Expansion 15 Resale opportunity 10 Constrained 0Compatible affinities near-by Y 10 N 0

Dashboard

20

Pilot Facilities

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

Ohio St. Adult Probation Services

23

Ohio St. Adult Probation Services

24

Ohio St. Adult Probation Services

25

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

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;

RecommendationReal Estate Services be authorized to initiate site search for purchase of land or structure. Search area compatible with client distribution mapping

1. 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

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

Facility Effectiveness Assessment Facility Effectiveness Assessment ToolTool

Department of General ServicesCounty of San Diego

CGSA Conference 2014CGSA Conference 2014San Diego, CASan Diego, CA