½ûÂþÌìÌÃ

In the Spring of 2018, ½ûÂþÌìÌà (½ûÂþÌìÌà or the District) selected AECOM to implement a comprehensive Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) of District-owned assets covering 8.1M gross square feet across 94 educational sites. 

The objective of the FCA is to accomplish the following goals:

• Calculate Facility Condition Index (FCI) Scores for buildings, including FCI scores for individual systems.
• Prioritize building systems based on need, observed deficiencies, remaining useful life, and classify each system based on a recommended timeframe for when these systems should be replaced.
• Create one central depository of data on critical building systems
• Update previous Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility studies

Following the assessments, a recommended corrective action for each observed deficiency was developed. If an action was required within four years, remedial repairs were costed and given a severity category and priority.

The items and issues identified in the FCA could potentially impact current operations and future growth or expansion capabilities. The result of the FCA is a database of system deficiencies with estimated remedial costs. It provides the groundwork for analysis that supports the District’s institutional planning and decision-making process by making accurate facility information accessible. The database also enables the District to generate multi-year capital spending plans to implement the proposed upgrades and replacements.

Through the assessment, data on over 15k assets were documented. Of those assets, approximately 7k deficiencies, including ADA, were recorded and priced. Assets with the highest associated costs were related to heat-generating systems, followed by elevators, lifts, and distribution systems. Nearly three-quarters of all deficiencies were categorized as "Aged – Exceeded Design Life." To be sure, a significant portion of District infrastructure is well beyond its intended design life; assets installed in the 1920s or 1950s present a high risk for continued reliability and serviceability.

The most common deficiency severity class was "Warm & Dry," corresponding to the District's aged mechanical systems. The most common deficiency priority class was "2 Potentially Critical," suggesting these assets have an expected remaining useful life of two-years. 

The appendixes under the sidebar Building Condition Documents present an overview of the District's FCI scores. The FCI value is based on physical observations of systems and deficiencies, and the replacement cost of each facility, resulting in an overall condition index.

The findings in this report are based on nationally recognized facility condition assessment approaches, methods and techniques, and best practices used to evaluate and assess the physical condition of educational and support facilities. Included in these assessments were the permanent educational and teaching buildings, site and ground features, athletic fields, athletic facilities, and other permanent administrative, maintenance, warehouse or other ancillary buildings such as storage or equipment buildings.

Regarding building systems, assessment teams evaluated the following:

• Structure
• Exterior enclosure
• Roofing
• Interior construction
• Stairs
• Interior finishes
• Conveying
• Plumbing
• HVAC
• Fire protection
• Electrical
• Site Improvements
• Athletics

To ensure consistency in the collected data, the assessment team evaluated District assets using pre-established, standardized criteria. All assessments were performed per ASTM E2018 guidelines. Documents reviewed in preparation for the investigation included District work order data, floorplans, historical reports, and previous ADA assessments.

The assessments required the use of specially-trained personnel and distinctive methods and approaches to the work. AECOM personnel and sub-consultants conducted the physical condition assessment of the buildings and grounds and prepared the overall findings. In addition, AECOM incorporated the local knowledge and expertise of District maintenance and operations representatives, custodians, and extensive input from facility operations managers in the development of the individual facility assessment reports and findings.

The data was collected without intrusion, relocation, or removal of materials, exploratory probing, use of specialized protective clothing, or use of any special equipment (lifts, fall protection, etc.) and did not necessitate lockout/tag-out procedures. AECOM did not access roofs without built-in access or secured ladder, nor pitched roofs. In situations where roofs were not accessible, recommendations were developed based on the walk-through assessment of the interior, vantage points from higher building elevations nearby (if possible), dialogue with onsite personnel, as well as client feedback and information such as roof age and known issues.

Each team member used identical condition assessment criteria to assess the condition of building systems to ensure data collection consistency. The condition assessment criteria guided the assessment of each facility system and major assets. Team members utilized the system age and observed deficient conditions to assess the building systems. 

Data collected for each system aligned to Uniformat II standards for building classification. Each system was rated from one to five according to the system age and observed deficient conditions, with a rating of five being ‘Excellent.’

The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is the ratio of a building’s maintenance costs relative to the cost of replacing the building at current construction costs. FCI values range from 0.00 (Good) to 1.00 (Critical). A higher FCI indicates a greater need for remedial funding, relative to the facility’s replacement value. The District average FCI is 0.15, or colloquially, “Poor.” Sixty-two facilities rated Poor or Critical of the ninety-four sites assessed.

As a standardized scale, the Facility Condition Index is a practical basis for strategic facilities capital planning. Metrics such as the FCI give stakeholders the ability to compare the condition of similar buildings to each other, as well as establish target condition ratings. Comparing buildings against a standardized scale also highlights the buildings in the greatest need of investment. 

This analysis can be used to see trends, compare the outcomes of short-term, lower budget repairs with mid- to long-term, higher-cost rehabilitations. The rehabilitation and replacements often require more substantial strategy and investment that take place over the long-term. However, operations and maintenance (O&M), repair, and smaller rehabilitation can be used to extend asset and building lives, resulting in cost savings over the long-term, up to a threshold of where O&M costs outweigh the capital investment in replacing an asset or building. This threshold will differ by strategy, constraints and drivers, and capabilities. The findings here provide the information on which to base investment decisions in these contexts. The FCI values were calculated using the following formula: FCI = Identified Deficiencies ÷ Current Facility Replacement Value.

Cost estimates as developed are intended for budgetary planning and future project prioritization and utilize industry-standard RSMeans data. These rough order of magnitude estimates are based on zero percent design. As such, the preliminary estimates provided have a wider range of projected accuracy. The estimated cost of identified deficiencies is $614,073,845 in 2020 dollars.

These cost estimates should only be construed as preliminary. Actual costs will vary depending on the type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, system selected, field conditions, phasing, market conditions, and whether competitive pricing is solicited. These costs do not include unknown hazardous materials removal or evaluation of other expenses that were not a part of this study.

Forthcoming