FCA Program History and Overview

Initial Survey and Reports

Intelligent Systems and Engineering Services (ISES) Corporation, a consulting firm that specializes in building condition assessments, did the initial survey work and reporting. ISES is a recognized leader in the industry and has conducted facility condition assessments at hundreds of colleges and universities across the nation. ISES survey teams completed their fieldwork over a span of three years. That process included meetings with knowledgeable building staff, a visual inspection of all systems, review of related in-house building files and studies, and site inspections. Draft reports were submitted as building reports were completed. In addition to providing hard copy reports, ISES also provided the information in an electronic database and software program that can be managed and updated by the University. Thus, the university has purchased both a body of information and an electronic database for managing that information on an ongoing basis.

The ISES database addresses the condition of the existing buildings and components. Recommended scopes of work aim at restoring the existing buildings as they presently exist, with some upgrades to meet codes (such as accessibility) and social norms (such as air-conditioning). ISES does not address the issue of how the space is configured (size of spaces, need for programming space, etc.), nor whether or not the configuration can meet the University's future needs.

Quality of the ISES Data

The ISES database and information system has both strengths and weaknesses. In terms of strengths, it is a cost-effective, broad-brush approach that enables facilities managers and administrators to get a handle on the overall condition of their buildings relatively easily. And the electronic database and software enable managers to field a "living system," one that can be revised, updated, and fine-tuned over time for both short-term and long-term capital planning and decision-making. However, the ISES data is neither comprehensive nor infallible due to the following:

• Inspection and Testing. The ISES assessment process did not entail in-depth or invasive inspection and testing of building systems and components. An ISES field survey team of two or three professionals covers approximately 100,000 square feet of building floor space a day, using primarily visual inspection for their work. As a result, hidden conditions and needed scopes of work can easily be overlooked.
• Omissions. The ISES assessment did not address elevators, dumb waiters, information technology (IT) systems, or programmatic requirements.

In addition to the above, University experience over the last year or two has demonstrated that the original ISES cost estimates are generally low. And while ISES recommends that all identified projects be addressed within ten years or less, in-house staff are of the opinion that much of the work can be scheduled in the ten-to-twenty year range. This is not intended to constitute a criticism of ISES or its work. ISES has provided an outstanding service and system for managing building assets at a reasonable cost. The point is that the ISES data simply needs to be thoroughly reviewed and revised in order to serve as an effective compass and planning tool for capital renewal.

Ground Rules, Guidelines, and Understandings for Working with the Database

The following ground rules, guidelines, and understandings were clarified and established for the project team to use in reviewing and revising the ISES database. These are intended to clarify work for the project team, achieve consistency throughout the database, and provide direction for future work on the system by other staff.

1. Scopes of "needed work" are included in the database based on available information related to the age (expected life or planned obsolescence) and/or actual condition of the system or component. Revisions and entries by in-house staff are based on the latter. The only exceptions to this are selected furnishings where there is direct, in-house experience in correlating expected life spans with condition of the components (such as corridor carpeting, drapes, and student room furniture).
2. Scopes of work and priorities are based on whatever data and information is available. This data and information may come from first-hand experience, input from trusted and knowledgeable staff, outside consultants and experts, and/or special studies.
3. The project team is to be notified if any specific situation or condition arises that appears to fall outside the guidelines, or does not fit into the criteria and definitions established for project categories and/or priorities. Such circumstances typically indicate a misinterpretation or a need to clarify or revise system definitions.
4. If a scope of work qualifies under more than one project category, the "driver" is assigned as the category. (Example: An old heating system requires replacement and it is decided to install a new system that also has air-conditioning capabilities. While replacing the old heating system is in the "capital renewal" category, providing the new air-conditioning is "plant adaption." Since the project is being "driven" by the need to replace the old heating system, it is classified as capital renewal.)
5. Project team members make decisions related to the database in good faith, per the above guidelines and the system definitions for project categories and project priorities.

To serve as an accurate tool for capital planning and decision-making, the ISES database will require continual refinement and regular revision as new data and information become available.

Priority Classification System

The ISES priority system was not specifically designed for the universities capital planning needs or realities. For example, the ISES priority system classifies projects under four priority categories, based on completion periods ranging from immediately (Priority 1--"Currently Critical") to ten years (Priority 4--"Recommended"). However, the renewal period will span at least two decades, rather than one. The project team therefore developed an alternative priority system to meet the universities particular needs and serve both its near-term and long-term planning processes. In doing that, the following criteria and requirements were established for the new priority classification system:

	Criteria No. 1:	The priority categories and definitions are clear, easily understood, and can be consistently applied by different staff working with the system at different times.
	Criteria No. 2:	The priority system supports and facilitates both the near-term and long-term capital planning and decision-making processes.
	Criteria No. 3:	The priority system accurately and consistently reflects how the university expends and plans to expend capital funding.

Based on the above, a new priority classification system was developed and used in the ISES database.

Priority		Definitions
Necessary	Priority #1 Currently Critical	Needed work that requires near-term action to accomplish one or more of the following: restore building occupancy due to natural disaster or catastrophic failure address cited or known life-threatening safety hazard
	Priority #2 Currently High Priority	Needed work that requires near-term action to accomplish one or more of the following: avoid situation from becoming a priority #1 prevent accelerated deterioration of building component or system replace component that has worn out or is no longer in service avoid loss of critical system that would significantly affect services, impact occupancy, or create a safety hazard address existing non-life-threatening safety hazard maintain, restore, or upgrade conditions to minimum acceptable University standards reduce unacceptably high maintenance, energy and/or other operating costs (economically justified via payback) meet program requirements
Deferrable	Priority #3 Necessary, but Not Yet Critical or High Priority	Needed work that is expected to become a priority #1 or #2 within the next 10 years.
	Priority #4 Deferrable until Building Renewal	Needed work that can probably wait more than 10 years. This work will be completed during a building renewal.

Cost Estimates

The accuracy of the database cost estimates vary from reliable to placeholder, as defined in the Certainty Matrix below.

Level of Certainty		Definition and Basis of Estimate	Margin of Error
Rank	Classification
Highest	HARD	Actual bids for specific scope of work. Project has been awarded and scheduled.	+/- 0%
	FIRM	Design and specifications for specific scope of work. Pre-bid estimates awaiting actual bidding process and award of contract.	+/- 5%
	RELIABLE	Recent experience in U of M environment for similar or identical work, or reliable known costs factors.	+/- 10%
	SOFT	General professional experience and professional knowledge of industry or task (inside or outside of U of M experience)	+/- 50%
Lowest	PLACEHOLDER	Based on broad general knowledge and "reasonable person" assumptions, but for relatively undefined scope of work. A professional "guesstimate"	+ 1000%/- 50%

The extraordinary margin of error for placeholder estimates is a function of the lack of definition for certain scopes of work. This category enables the FCA database to be comprehensive. The majority of the placeholder type projects have been input by the Housings Facilities Department as they have added IT projects.

Where possible, in-house staff revised the original estimates based on direct University experience. These estimates are considered reliable and relate primarily to: HVAC, plumbing, electrical distribution systems, lighting, interior finishes, doors, fire detection and alarm systems, general lighting systems, emergency generators and fire suppression systems.

The ISES cost estimates do not include any adjustments for working with historic structures or heritage buildings. And the ISES building replacement costs are based on function rather than aesthetic value or reproduction cost.

The following table provides a general overview on the cost estimates presently in the capital-planning database. The comments regarding ISES cost estimates were generated jointly by staff from AES, the Housing Facilities Department, and the Plant Operations Department.

Estimated Costs for Capital Planning
Source and Type of Cost Estimate	Certainty Matrix Category	Comments	Percentage of Total Estimated Dollars
ISES	Varies	Based on actual experience at U of M with ISES cost estimates and current projects, certainty levels are as follows: Building equipment: +/- 20% Building envelopes: + 500%/- 50% Embedded systems: + 300%/- 50% Historic buildings: + 1,000%/- 50%	30%
Revised	Reliable +/- 20%	Based on recent experience in U of M environment for similar or identical work. Includes estimates for: HVAC Plumbing Electrical distribution systems Lighting Fire alarm systems Emergency generators Fire suppression systems	60%
"Guesstimate"	Placeholder +/- 100%	Based on broad general knowledge but for a relatively undefined scope of work. Intended to "hold a place in the system" to further a comprehensive approach while waiting for a better estimate. Includes estimates for: IT systems Miscellaneous others	10%

Guidelines for Revisions to Budgets on Approved Fiscal Year Team Activity

The university has found that during the design phase of a given infrastructure project the designer often uncovers a need to revise the scope resulting in an increase to the project budget. To reduce the delay in the project schedule the university has developed a procedure to revise the project budget on an approved infrastructure project. This procedure will help to assure that approved projects are completed in a timely fashion.

Guidelines for Selecting and Prioritizing Projects for IMF

Guidelines have been developed to provide direction to the category teams for the selecting and prioritizing projects on the infrastructure list.

Project Classifications

The project classifications have been useful in establishing a funding source for correcting each deficiency. Each cited deficiency is categorized within one of the following four classifications according to the definition provided below:

1. Plant Adaptation:
   Refers to expenditures required to adapt the physical to the evolving needs of the institution and to changing standards. These are expenditures in addition to normal maintenance.
   Examples include compliance with changing codes (e.g., handicapped accessibility), facility alteration required by changed teaching or research methods, and improvements occasioned by the adoption of modern technology (e.g., the use of personal computer networks).
2. Deferred Maintenance:
   Refers to expenditures for repairs, which were not accomplished as a part of normal maintenance, or capital repair, which have accumulated to the point that facility deterioration is evident and could impair the proper functioning of the facility. Costs estimated for deferred maintenance projects should include compliance with applicable codes even if such compliance requires expenditures additional to those essential to effect needed repairs. Deferred maintenance projects represent catch up expenses.
   Example would be a roof replacement at the end of its normal useful life would be considered capital repair. Roof replacement several years after its normal useful life is deferred maintenance
3. Capital Renewal:
   Refers to major repairs or the replacement/rebuilding of major facility components. The big difference between Capital Renewal and Deferred Maintenance is the timing. As items reach the end of their useful life they become Capital Renewal items. If they are not replaced at the end of their useful life then they become deferred. Thus you will see identical projects on both lists. Up grading of major systems with newer technology are also considered Capital Renewal items.
   Examples include up grading of air handling systems from constant volume to VAV, up grading lighting, up grading fire alarm systems, etc.

Program Benefits

The FCA program provides the platform that will used to implement an ongoing system of identification and prioritization of capital repair projects within University of Michigan. The FCA program has a wide range of benefits to several different departments within the university. The FCA program provides:

• an improved approach in which to properly manage our facilities assets in a more pro-active manner (as opposed to reactive maintenance). The FCA program provides a solid knowledge of the deficiencies that must be corrected. Previously this knowledge was spread out among many different individuals and departments. The lack of a centralized repository of facilities deficiencies information has resulted in renovation / repair projects that omit critical deficiencies. These omissions must later be corrected, usually at significantly higher costs. The creation and maintenance of a centralized database of deficiencies is the number one goal of our FCA effort. When all of the deficiencies have been consolidated, it is far more difficult to omit critical items from the design of on-going renovation projects.
• a central location for the storing of facility condition data. Previously if you wanted all of the condition data for a particular building you would need to talk to several individuals in different departments to gather all of the information. The FCA program puts the condition information at everyone's fingertips.
• a means of organizing and sorting facility condition data such that reports can be viewed and printed using a wide variety of criteria. Each user can sort and print the data that suits their particular need.
• a useful tool for organizing and prioritizing all deficiency corrective measures using standardized criteria.
• a facility condition needs index (FCNI) value which is simply the cost required to correct all deficiencies in a building divided by the total replacement cost of that building. This FCNI value is a useful tool for comparing the relative condition of all buildings. This tool will be useful in determining which buildings should be considered for major renovations or up-grades.
• a means to assure that funding sources have been identified for each project to help assure that each deficiency is properly addressed.
• the process of the generating project scopes and budget estimates, which greatly improves the accuracy of forecasting future capital renewal and maintenance needs. Without the centralized (and complete) deficiency database, only projects planned for the immediate future typically have any supporting cost and / or prioritization information. The lack of detailed information on longer-range projects makes forecasting maintenance budget needs extremely difficult. This difficulty in forecasting results in future budget requirements being based on historical expenditures as opposed to what is actually needed. This information will be valuable at the state level for assessing funding requirements.
• a power tool useful in the development of a five-year capital renewal model that shows the needs versus available funding and the resultant FCNI.

FCA User Groups

The FCA data is presently being used by numerous individuals for a variety of purposes. A few of those have been outlined below:

• Zone Maintenance Shops use the FCA database as a central location for compiling all building deficiencies. The database provides a consistent means of entering deficiencies, and a powerful tool for establishing priorities.
• Plant Engineering uses the FCA data to prepare the annual infrastructure project report that identifies the highest priority projects for the annual infrastructure fund.
• The University Architects Office uses the FCA data to prepare scope of work and budget estimates for major renovation projects. The database helps planners see beyond the surface needs to assure that all deficiencies are addressed as part of the renovation project. Prior to FCA several needs, such as major HVAC up-grades were omitted from projects.
• Capital Planning Committee uses the data when considering which buildings should receive major renovations and which should be torn down.
• Architecture, Engineering and Construction department uses the database as a starting point for their design services on renovation projects.
• Facility Managers use the data to coordinate repairs and replacements of components within their buildings.
• Risk Management Office uses the database to compile their list of needs and wishes. Factory Mutual is actively involved in reviewing, validating and prioritizing needs within this group.
• Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH) uses the database to compile and prioritize their list of projects.
• VP Chief Financial Office uses executive summary reports in preparing annual reports to the State for funding and for development of a 5-year financial model for physical properties improvements.
• Utilities department is using information from the FCA database to establish a new chilled water plant enterprise to fund all future chiller replacements.
• Architects and engineering consultants use the FCA data as a starting point for their detailed master plans and their design services.
• Athletics, Housing and Student Affairs will use the FCA data for presentations to the University Regents to show their financial needs. They will be using the database in similar fashion to the University Campus.
• University Hospital will be using the database in similar fashion to the University Campus.
• Department of Transportation will be using the site data to compile and prioritize their list of projects for roads, sidewalks and parking lots.

Program Status

The General Fund portion of FCA was broken down into three separate phases; I, II and IV. This encompasses over 200 buildings totaling over 13 million gross square feet. All three General Fund phases have been completed and all building reports delivered. The General Fund FCA data is presently being reviewed and validated by our in-house data management teams and comments incorporated into the database.

Phase III of the FCA Program has been completed. Phase III included all of the Housing Department, which included approximately 4.5 million gross square feet. The Housing data has been added to the database. Housing staff is reviewing and validating the reports.

Phase V of the FCA Program has been completed. Phase V included ten buildings from the Athletics Department including Crisler Arena, Fisher Baseball Stadium, Golf Club House, Hartwig Women's Athletic Offices, Keen Arena, Oosterbaan Field House, Schembechler Hall, Track & Tennis, Weidenbach Hall and Yost Ice Arena, over 800,000 GSF.

Phase VI of the FCA Program has been completed. Phase VI includes all parking lots, roads and sidewalks. The Site Team is reviewing and validating the reports.

Phase VII of the FCA Program has been completed. Phase VII included Michigan League, Michigan Union & Pierpont Commons.

Phase VIII of the FCA Program has been completed. Phase VIII includes Executive Residence.

Phase IX of the FCA Program has been completed. Phase IX includes all of the central Hospital buildings, approximately 3,000,000 GSF. Hospital staff is reviewing and validating the reports.

Phase X of the FCA program has been completed. Phase X includes the three Arbor Lakes Buildings.

Phase XI of the FCA program was for the Willow Run Complex. This phase was cancelled.

Phase XII of the FCA program has been completed. Phase XII includes Food & Chemical Stores.

Phase XIII of the FCA program has been completed. Phase XIII includes Auxiliary Building, 2501.

Phase XIV of the FCA program is being handled directly by our in-house elevator shop. Each week participants from the elevator shop visit several elevators together to conduct assessments. They are preparing projects as required for each elevator. The elevator shop is presently entering these projects into the FCA database.

Database Management

For the database to reach its fullest potential and to realize all of the benefits previously mentioned it is crucial that it be maintained on a continuous basis. Plant Operations, Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC), OSEH and Risk Management departments are making a commitment to this effort. We will utilize a combination of two database management systems will be put in place to accomplish this goal.

First; in-house teams have been identified for each category and will be assigned the responsibility of reviewing the data, checking projects, setting priorities, adding projects, closing projects, etc. The following departments and individuals have been identified as team leaders:

•	Site	AEC - Tony Catchot / Tom Keast
•	Exterior	Plant Ops - Dennis Krieg
•	Interior/Finish Systems	Plant Ops - Jim Vibbart
•	Accessibility	AES - Dave Stockson
•	Health	OSEH - Mike Hanna
•	Fire/Life Safety	DPS - Ian Steinman
•	HVAC	Utilities and Plant Engineering - Steve Woldt / Craig Butcher•
•	Electrical	Utilities and Plant Engineering - Ed Hengesh / Joe Iott
•	Plumbing	Utilities and Plant Engineering - Dale Jackson / Ivory Sims
•	Elevators	Elevator Shop - David Flint/Terri Emmons
•	Resource	Utilities and Plant Engineering - Mike Bowen