more with less: five strategies for facilities success [mappa-cappa 2017]
TRANSCRIPT
More with Less: Five Strategies for Facilities
Success
Helen Bailey, AIA, LEED AP, CEFPUniversity North Texas
Kevan Will, Sightlines
Kent Pecora, Sightlines
Introducing Today’s Presenters
Kevan Will; Senior Account Manager, Sightlines
• 11+ years of tenure at Sightlines
• Has worked with over 100 campuses in 27 states
• Currently serving as the Sightlines Operational Lead for 20 members including: University of Arkansas, Cleveland State University & Michigan Technological University
• Graduated from Gettysburg College with a BA in Management
Helen Bailey; Director and Campus Architect
Facilities Planning, Design & Construction, University of North Texas
• 16+ years of tenure at University of North Texas
• Proudest Accomplishments @ UNT:
• Involved in renovations in almost every building on campus and much of the campus during her tenure
• Experienced the largest growth period in UNT’s history with student enrollment growth from 28,000 in 2001 to 38,000 today, including countless major renovations, new buildings, and acquisitioned structures during that time.
• .
Kent Pecora; Project Lead, Sightlines
• 3+ years of tenure at Sightlines
• Has worked with over 50 campuses in 13 states
• Currently serving as the Sightlines Operational Lead for 15 members including: University of North Texas
• Graduated from Dickinson College with a BS in Physics
Today’s Agenda
• Introduction to Sightlines/Gordian
• National & Regional Trends (Challenges) in Facilities in Higher Education
• UNT’s Approach: 5 Strategies for Success
• Deep Dive in to UNT’s Toolbox: Annual Sightlines Assessment, Classroom Utilization & Gordian Job Order Contracting
Introduction to Sightlines/Gordian
Sightlines is a Gordian CompanyLeading provider of facility and construction cost data, software and expertise for all phases of the building lifecycle.
Gordian was founded on innovation. Our industry experts continue to refine our data and software to address real challenges:
• Pioneer of localized construction cost information with RSMeans data
• Creator of the streamlined construction procurement method, Job Order Contracting
• Leader in defining facilities analysis and benchmarking with Sightlines
• University of North Texas is one of several higher education clients utilizing both Gordian Job Order Contracting solutions and Sightlines’ benchmarking and facilities assessments
Leading provider of facilities
intelligence in higher education
helping them to identify ways to use
capital more strategically and identify
opportunities to improve operational
effectiveness and providing them with
tools for strategic planning, analyzing
and benchmarking.
Sightlines by the NumbersRobust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums, and state systems
43States+DC
90%Memberretention
rate
360+ROPA
Members
450Colleges &
Universities
170New members
since 2013
5Canadianprovinces
Sightlines has advised state systems in:
• Alaska
• California
• Florida
• Hawaii
• Maine
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• Pennsylvania
• Texas
• Washington
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Nebraska
• Ohio
Integrated Campus Stewardship
Facilities intelligence that connects space, capital, and operating policies
Sightlines breaks through the organizational siloes and creates alignment from the “boardroom to the boiler room.”
National & Regional Trends (Challenges) in Facilities in Higher Education
2016 State of Facilities in Higher Education
• Space growing faster than enrollment – with research universities being the exception
• Construction vintage drives risk profile• Steady investment levels with greater reliance on
annual institutional capital• Facilities backlogs continue to rise
http://www.sightlines.com/insight/state-of-facilities-2016/
Challenges: Space Profile
Space Growing Faster Than Enrollment
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Pe
rce
nt
Ch
ange
Space and Enrollment TrendsNational Average
Space Enrollment
Space and Enrollment Growth – Public vs. Private
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Pe
rce
nt
Ch
ange
Space and Enrollment - Public
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015P
erc
en
t C
han
ge
Space and Enrollment - Private
Space and Enrollment Growth by Constituent Group
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Pe
rce
nt
Ch
ange
Comprehensive Institutions Research Institutions Small Institutions
Space and Enrollment Growth – MAPPA & CAPPA
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Pe
rce
nt
Ch
ange
Space and Enrollment - MAPPA
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Pe
rce
nt
Ch
ange
Space and Enrollment - CAPPA
Movement of Public University StudentsFrom the New York Times article “The Great Out-of-State Migration”
Texas – Campus Space and Enrollment Growth
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Pe
rce
nt
Ch
ange
of
Enro
llme
nt
& S
pac
e
Texas Space Growth Texas Enrollment Growth
An Accurate Prediction
“One side effect of this rapid growth has been the creation of anincreasingly large obligation for the future renewal and replacement ofthe physical plant.”
–Rick Biedenwig, 1980
Founder, Pacific Partners Consulting Group
Source: Before the Roof Caves In II: Published with assistance from APPA and Stanford University
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Sightlines Database- Construction Age
Built pre-1951
• Durable construction
• Older but lasts longer
Putting Your Campus Building Age in ContextCampus age drives overall risk profile
% o
f C
on
str
ucte
d S
pa
ce
Pre-War Built 1951 - 1975
• Lower quality
• Needs more repairs
& renovation
1975 - 1990
• Quick flash
construction
• Low quality
components
Built post-1991
• Technically complex
• Higher quality
• More expensive to maintain
or repair
Modern
Post War Complex
MAPPA & CAPPA Institutions: Different Profiles
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
% o
f G
SF
% of GSF by Construction & Renovation Year
Sightlines Database- Construction Age CAPPA MAPPA
Challenges: Capital
Capital Investment in Existing SpaceSteady investment levels with continued improvement in capital funding
$1.12 $1.19 $1.28 $1.21$1.60 $1.67 $1.71 $1.59 $1.73
$3.10
$3.83 $3.88$3.63 $3.09
$3.37 $3.35$2.99
$3.32
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
$/G
SF
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One-Time Capital Average
Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise
$81.72 $83.42 $87.19 $88.52 $90.73 $93.27 $95.31 $97.56 $100.07
$0.0
$20.0
$40.0
$60.0
$80.0
$100.0
$120.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
$/G
SFBacklog $/GSF
Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise
$81.00 $85.00 $88.00 $92.00 $96.00
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
$/G
SF
MAPPA
$79.00 $80.00 $82.00 $83.00 $85.00
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
$/G
SF
CAPPA
Challenges: Operations
Facilities Operating BudgetSmall increases in campus operating budgets from 2007-2015
$3.98$4.26 $4.33 $4.37 $4.41 $4.44 $4.54 $4.65 $4.74
$0.25
$0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.27 $0.29 $0.29$0.31 $0.33
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
$/G
SF
Facilities Operating Budget $/GSF
Daily Service Planned Maintenance Inflation
Modest Energy Reductions Since 2007
82,251 83,320 78,403 75,875 77,505 69,317 73,993 76,834 72,740
51,196 52,788 53,124
52,471 53,031
52,010 51,230
51,553 50,487
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Pe
rce
nt
Ch
ange
BTU
/GSF
Energy Consumption
Fossil Electric Percent Change
UNT’s Approach: 5 Strategies for Success
UNT’s Approach:Five Strategies for Success
Look ahead
Build strategically
Less can be more
Keep-up
Reward savings
Look Ahead: Enrollment Growth Outpaces GSF Growth
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
% C
ha
nge
Sin
ce
FY
07
Percent Change Over Time
GSF Change Student FTE Change
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
GS
F/S
tud
en
t F
TE
Projected Program Space per Student
Space per Student Peer Average
Future Assumptions:
• 2.5% increase in Students/Year
• +130k GSF by 2020
Build Strategically: What Is Needed?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Room Utilization: Biology and Chemistry Labs MTWRF
Room Utilization
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
80
0
84
5
93
0
10
15
11
00
11
45
12
30
13
15
14
00
14
45
15
30
16
15
17
00
17
45
18
30
19
15
20
00
20
45
21
30
Seat Utilization: Biology and Chemistry Labs,
MTWRF
Seat Utilization
Biology and Chemistry Teaching Labs at UNT are highly utilized - 47 hours per week vs state standard of 25 hours per week
Biology and Chemistry Teaching Labs at UNT are highly utilized – average, 90% of seats in each classroom are filled while in use.
Less Can Be More: “Right Size” Classroom Inventory
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
80
0
91
5
10
30
11
45
13
00
14
15
15
30
16
45
0-27
80
0
90
0
10
00
11
00
12
00
13
00
14
00
15
00
16
00
17
00
28-408
00
90
0
10
00
11
00
12
00
13
00
14
00
15
00
16
00
17
00
41-60
80
0
90
0
10
00
11
00
12
00
13
00
14
00
15
00
16
00
17
00
61-90
80
0
90
0
10
00
11
00
12
00
13
00
14
00
15
00
16
00
17
00
91-160
80
0
90
0
10
00
11
00
12
00
13
00
14
00
15
00
16
00
17
00
161+
42% 63% 69% 74% 77% 85%
Smaller Capacity Larger Capacity
Room utilization increases with classroom capacity
Opportunity to “Right Size” classroom inventory to maximize utilization
Keep Up: What’s My Number?
$34.5
$13.5$9.9
$17.6
$6.0
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
$40.0
3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target
$ in
Mil
lio
ns
FY16 Annual Investment Target
Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$/G
SF
Daily Service + Planned Maintenance Expenditures
Daily Service Planned Maintenance
Reward Savings: Make the Case
• Daily Service (Reactive) Expenditures have decreased.
• Planned Maintenance (Proactive/Life Cycle Extending) Expenditures have increased.
• Reallocate savings (shaded area) towards additional Stewardship and “Keep Up” spending.
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$/G
SF
Daily Service + Planned Maintenance Expenditures
Daily Service Planned MaintenanceSavings/Cost Avoidance
Deep Dive in to UNT’s Toolbox: Annual Sightlines Assessment, Classroom Utilization & Gordian Job Order Contracting
State of the University
• Founded in 1890 in Denton, Texas• 4th largest university in the state• Tier One Research University• 13 colleges• Nearly 38,000 students
UNT Facilities:• 165 Buildings including 15 Residence Halls • 7M+ GSF• 900+ acres• Facilities manpower: 325+
Introduction to UNT
$ Mils 31.6 31.8 33.8 33.5 27.5 27.5 94.7 94.7 87.3 87.5 92.9 95.5 98.1 105.4 104.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17
Closed
Engineering
Auxiliary
Campus Planning
UNT FPDC Project Management Workload Stats
How the Tools in Our Toolbox Help Our Resource Challenges
• Aging buildings
• Identified a need to focus our improvement efforts strategically
• Limited funding
• Need to prioritize most critical needs
• Expedited construction schedules
• Changing priorities, class schedules, and lack of swing space despite our best planning efforts very often requires quick delivery methods
UNT/Gordian Job Order Contracting (JOC) Program
Gordian started by writing a UNT specific Construction Task Catalogue (CTC) unit pricing book
• RFP issued in 2013
• Contract terms:• $900K max per job order• $5M limit cumulative per GC• 3 year term contract with 2 optional 12 month renewals
• 5% fee for Gordian oversight
• 5 general contractors
• 80+ individual projects
• $6.75M total cumulative
JOC Program
• Used for small-to-medium sized interior renovations & remodeling
• Maintenance repairs and minor new construction
• Short timelines
• Gordian JOC does not replace traditional bidding delivery methods for larger or non-expedited projects
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Do
lla
rs (
Mil
lio
ns
)
Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Annual Investment Target
We are able to track
how our funding
compares to the
Annual Investment
Target and determine
when we have to
stretch our dollar to
address needs on
campus when our
funding does not reach
the target
Sightlines Annual Assessment
Through the Space
Utilization Analysis, we
were able to confirm our
assumptions about our
heavy utilization on
Tuesday and Thursday,
especially during “Prime
Time”, with an average
of over 80% of our
classrooms in use.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
8:00-9:20 9:30-10:50 11:00-12:20 12:30-1:50 2:00-3:20 3:30-4:50
Tuesday Thursday
Tuesday/ Thursday Classroom Room Utilization By Time Block
Prime Time
Sightlines Classroom Utilization Findings
JOC Program Benefits
• Fast Track delivery method• Pre-bid contract with known coefficients
• CTC• Well defined UNT campus-specific defined tasks & materials
• No room for line item “manipulation”
• Known and quantified pricing• Gordian representative review of proposal scope and line
items
• Solid owner/contractor relationship• Contractor familiarity with our campus and approach
• responsive
Future Planning & Continued Development
• Sightlines assessment allows us to strategize maintenance priorities
• Classroom utilization study informs approach to improving and increasing classroom capacity
• JOC program allows us to react quickly with skilled contractors to meet the needs of the university.
Questions
Questions/Discussion
Contact Information
Helen Bailey
Director and Campus Architect
Facilities Planning, Design & Construction
Division of Finance & Administration
University of North Texas
Kevan Will
Senior Account Manager
Sightlines
Kent Pecora
Project Lead
Sightlines