estates committee

Estates Committee13th February 2009

LICA building

Project updates13th February 2009

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:

Condition Survey

Building Condition

Non Residential Residential

22%

46%

32%

% of GIA in condition A % of GIA in condition B% of GIA in condition C % of GIA in condition D

2%

77%

20% 0%


Building Condition


22%

46%

32%


2%

77%

20% 1%


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

Building Condition


22%

46%

32%


2%

77%

20% 1%


Building Condition – Cost to upgrade

Cost to upgrade from… Non Residential ResidentialD-B £ - £ 119,250.00C-B £ 26,392,927.34 £ 9,705,743.88

sub totals £ 26,392,927.34 £ 9,824,993.88 Grand total £ 36,217,921.22

Functional Suitability


63%

29%

8%

% of GIA Grade 1 % of GIA Grade 2% of GIA Grade 3 % of GIA Grade 4

60%

30%

10%




63%

29%

8%


60%

30%

10%


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)



63%

29%

8%


60%

30%

10%


Construction Date


% of GIA built since 1980

% of GIA built 1960-1979




% of GIA built before 1840

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

28.0%

70.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

1.0%

Non Residential

% of GIA built since 1980





% of GIA built before 1840

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

78.5%

21.0%

0.0%

0.5%

0.0%

0.0%

Residential

Construction Date

Pre 1960 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-20100%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Live Planon Demonstration13th February 2009

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Benchmarking Study

UniversityTotal Occupied University Area

(GIA) (m2)Total FM Costs Total Hard FM

CostsTotal Soft FM

Costs

X 144,898 £3,496,295 £1,975,893 £1,520,402Y 293,841 £11,125,336 £5,331,229 £5,794,107Z 144,384 £3,997,955 £1,578,604 £2,419,351Lancaster 172,250 £5,875,510 £2,973,647 £2,901,864

Lower Medium Upper£30.05 £33.39 £36.73

Benchmark Range

FM Costs per m2

£24.13£37.86£27.69£34.11

FM Cost SummaryCampus Details

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)

Benchmarking Study

Resource per 150,000 m2 Total Resource Hard FM Services Soft FM Services Electrical Mechanical Building Fabric Cleaning Other

X 108.37 43.90 64.47 12.25 14.55 5.87 56.82 18.89Lancaster 114.08 51.38 62.70 8.71 9.58 15.67 52.25 27.87Z 193.75 55.06 138.69 15.58 14.54 11.43 83.63 49.87Y 177.65 51.86 125.79 12.42 10.15 7.45 62.11 43.80

Hard FM Services Cleaning OtherElectrical Mechanical Building FabricSoft FM Services

Management Resource Levelsper 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)

Benchmarking Study

Resource Summaries - Management per 150,000 m2 Total

Hard FM Services

Soft FM Services

X 5.62 3.57 2.04Lancaster 7.84 6.10 1.74Z 12.47 6.23 6.23Y 13.56 7.97 5.59

Workload Comparator - Cleaning

Lancaster has the highest area cleaned per hour per operative than all other Universities within the review

Benchmarking Study

Comparator - Volume per day v operatives (Cleaning Only) m2 per hourX 268.50Lancaster 291.58Z 186.07Y 253.89GTFM Benchmark 199

Utilities Usage

Area m2 kWh Cost Units per/m2Cost

per/m2Cost

per/unitX 293,841 26,102,486 £2,610,248 88.83 £8.88 £0.10Lancaster 172,250 30,772,040 £2,400,688 178.65 £13.94 £0.08Z 144,384 15,789,293 £1,537,877 109.36 £10.65 £0.10Y 150,540 22,066,541 £1,875,656 146.58 £12.46 £0.09GTFM £0.08

Area m2 kWh Cost Units per/m2Cost

per/m2Cost

per/unitX 293,841 37,051,403 £689,156 126.09 £2.35 £0.019Lancaster 172,250 18,864,630 £429,154 109.52 £2.49 £0.023Z 144,384 14,223,974 £568,959 98.51 £3.94 £0.040Y 150,540 35,142,052 £442,069 233.44 £2.94 £0.013GTFM £0.025

Area m2 m3 Cost Units per/m2Cost

per/m2Cost

per/unitX 293,841 206,657 £244,000 0.70 £0.83 £1.18Lancaster 172,250 409,460 £253,781 2.38 £1.47 £0.62Z 144,384 154,180 £231,270 1.07 £1.60 £1.50Y 150,540 214,545 £343,278 1.43 £2.28 £1.60

Electricity

Gas

Water

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.

Benchmarking Study

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.

EMS Return

EMS Return - Key Estate RatiosKey Estate Ratios 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Sector Median 2006/07

Lower quartile

Upper quartile Mean

Building condition % GIA Condition A and B C13 27% 35% 68% 68% 71% 55% 84% 69%

Functional suitability % GIA Grade 1 and 2 C13 45% 45% 78% 92% 78% 60% 86% 72%

Total property costs (D26) psm NIA (D12) C13 £76 £85 £69 £90 £114 £98 £134 £122

Capital expenditure (D25) psm NIA (D12) C13 £122.35 £62.52 £67.05 £131.16 £107.50 £49.00 £174.69 £143.50

Maintenance costs (D33) psm GIA (D11) C1 £19.05 £19.61 £21.19 £16.96 £22.09 £17.34 £28.90 £24.25

Ratio of Maintenance costs (D33) and Capex (D25) to IRV (D24) C1 4.59% 2.76% 3.71% 4.46% 5.13% 3.26% 7.60% 6.44%

Energy costs (D31) psm GIA (D11) C1 £9.15 £15.02 £12.89 £16.87 £12.65 £11.02 £15.07 £13.15

Estate management costs (D35a + D36a) psm NIA (D12) C1 £2.88 £3.00 £1.41 £2.63 £3.22 £2.23 £5.82 £4.47

Total property costs (D26) per bedspace (D23) C14 £1,255 £1,278 £1,277 £1,297 £1,111 £927 £1,472 £1,222

HEI Income (D1) per bedspace (D23) C14 £3,255 £2,619 £2,461 £2,856 £2,956 £2,476 £3,680 £3,236

Ratio of total property costs (D26) to HEI Income (D1) C14 38.5% 48.8% 51.9% 45.4% 37.8% 29.9% 52.6% 41.6%

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.

EMS Return - Summary

estates committee

Documents