GUIDELINES FOR STRATEGIC ASSETMANAGEMENT

How to Undertake a Facilities Audit

Edition 1: October 2000

ContributorsRussell CandyDirector, Office of Facilities Management, The University of Western Australia

Bob LewtasAssociate Director Facilities Operations, Office of Facilities Management, MurdochUniversity

Alan McGregorDirector, Office of Facilities Management, Murdoch University

Jenny SchumannFacilities Audit Officer, The University of Western Australia

Gerald StackManager, Operations and Maintenance, The University of Western Australia

Editorial PanelBill AndersonProperty Manager, University of Auckland

Andrew FrowdDirector, Facilities Management, Queensland University of Technology

Joe HollanderDirector, Strategic Facilities Management, Massey University

Sam RagusaDirector, Office of Facilities Management, Griffith University

John SimmonsAssistant Director (Capital Works), Facilities Management Office, University of Sydney

AcknowledgementsWe gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Jenny Schumann for the editing anddesktop production of this document, and Anthea Matthews and Shobha Cameron forproofreading the draft.

© AAPPA – Australasian Association of Higher EducationFacilities Officers

December, 2000 ISBN 1 74052 035 1

CONTENTS

Chapter 1 ………………………………………………………… 1

Introduction

Chapter 2 ………………………………………………………… 2

Educating Facilities Managers andthe Wider Campus Community

Chapter 3 ………………………………………………………… 3

Definitions

Chapter 4 ………………………………………………………… 6

A Strategic Asset Management Model –Guidelines for Implementation

Chapter 5 ………………………………………………………… 10

The Facilities Audit

Chapter 6 ………………………………………………………… 16

Managing the Facilities Audit

Appendix 1 ………………………………………………………… 18

Appendix 2 ………………………………………………………… 19

1

GUIDELINES FOR STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT

How to Undertake a Facilities Audit

Chapter 1 Introduction

This document had its genesis in workshops conducted by AAPPA in Australiaand New Zealand to raise awareness about the benefits of conducting FacilitiesAudits and documenting backlog maintenance. It is clear from informationsubmitted to the AAPPA Benchmark Survey that very few institutions are able toprovide information on their backlog maintenance. It became clear that mostinstitutions did not undertake audits of their facilities. It was therefore decidedthat AAPPA members would benefit from a document that provides a simple andunified approach to undertaking an audit and documenting backlogmaintenance.

The broad objective of this document is to provide guidelines for the preparationof a plan for strategic asset management to ensure campus infrastructureadequately supports service delivery objectives. There are benefits not only foryour institution but also for all higher educational institutions at a nationallevel, when data is collected through the AAPPA Benchmark Survey.

Specifically, Facilities Managers from institutions will be able to use this guideto:

1. Understand the levels at which a Facilities Audit can be pitched, and howbest to use the available resources.

2. Plan and resource a Facilities Audit of the institution infrastructure at thechosen level.

3. Plan for the long-term, cost-effective management of the data.

4. Analyse and provide credible data on backlog maintenance.

5. Prepare reports that are clear, concise and credible, and that impact oninstitution strategic planning and budget outcomes.

6. Provide outputs to respond to DETYA 1999 (Australia) and New ZealandMinistry of Education quality benchmarks.

While the greater part of this document provides details about conducting aFacilities Audit, the ultimate goal for the Facilities Manager must be to providestrategic advice on asset management. It is this information that is essential tothe financial health of your institution in the long term, hence the effort inputting the Facilities Audit into a strategic asset management context.

2

Chapter 2 Educating Facilities Managers andthe Wider Campus Community

Australasia, along with many other developed countries, has benefited fromseveral decades of affluence from the 1950s through to the 1990s. In the highereducation sector during this period, there was little attention paid to initialexpenditure and the cost of providing infrastructure and services. In addition,recurrent expenditure in areas of asset maintenance was rarely givenappropriate consideration, was typically under-funded and was rarely on thecorporate agenda.

The Challenge – to provide better value

With both the Australian and New Zealand Governments’ strong emphasis onfinancial management, and the pressures being placed on institutions to bemore self-sufficient, it is imperative that institutions better manage theirassets.

The role of the Facilities Manager is to provide leadership to ensure thishappens. With this in mind, asset management must be viewed as a financialconcept and managed alongside core business and other corporate elementssuch as Finance, Human Resources, Information Technology. As well as this,the assets need to be managed, not just maintained.

Therefore, strategic asset management, including property management, mustbe part of an effective corporate plan that is vigorously promoted to gain widesupport. Facilities Managers must provide pro-active leadership, focus on thebig picture, handle the difficult politics and constantly appraise senior executivewith their asset management plans.

Strategies for Consideration

• Getting asset management on the executive agenda can achieve the biggestimprovement.

• Facilities Managers should have explicit purpose, goals and targets for theirservices.

• Provide the institution community with access to information on the assetmanagement plan.

• Challenge customer assumptions and research behind their demands.• Market to, and educate the community to make it aware of the real costs of

assets.• Improve the operational effectiveness of existing assets.• Strategic Asset Management (SAM) requires close and ongoing measurement

of the service delivery of the assets.• Facilities Managers need to adopt a property management approach.• Understand the sourcing and use of capital.

3

Chapter 3 Definitions

The key definitions that are essential to planning for an asset maintenanceprogram and providing consistent and credible reports are listed below.

MaintenanceAll actions necessary for retaining an item or asset in, or restoring it to, acondition in which it achieves its originally specified performance.

It does not include cleaning or refurbishment.

Corrective maintenanceThe actions performed, as a result of failure, to restore an item or asset to itsoriginal condition, as far as practicable.

Corrective maintenance may or may not be programmed.

Preventive maintenanceThe actions performed to retain an item or asset in its original condition as faras practicable by providing systematic inspection, detection and prevention ofincipient failure.

Preventive maintenance is normally programmed.

Programmed (Planned) MaintenanceMaintenance assigned to be carried out within a specific period, for example, abudgeting period.

Statutory MaintenanceMaintenance that must be carried out to meet statutory requirements.

Backlog MaintenanceMaintenance that is necessary to prevent the deterioration of the asset or itsfunction but which has not been carried out.

Refurbishment (also known as Rehabilitation)Extensive work intended to bring a room or building or services up to a newstandard or alter it for a new use.

This work often includes maintenance.

4

Capital RenewalActions required to keep the asset in good operating condition for its currentpurpose. Capital renewal includes maintenance (including accumulated backlogmaintenance), replacement of component parts and building fabric asnecessary, and the modification of assets to suit the current purpose. Note thatthe renewal does not imply the exact replacement of original parts or materials.

Facilities AuditA systematic inspection and identification of the physical and functionaladequacy of facilities, with particular reference to the building fabric, servicesand site works components, to provide input for life cycle cost analysis, shortterm maintenance planning, long term planning purposes, and to assess theextent of backlog maintenance.

Asset Replacement Value (ARV) of Total CampusThe Asset Replacement Value for buildings, fixed equipment and infrastructureis the best estimate of the current cost of designing, constructing and equippingfor its original use, a new facility providing equal service potential as the originalasset and which meets currently accepted standards of construction and alsocomplies with all contemporary environmental and other regulatoryrequirements.

Note: The cost shall include the cost of all building services and associatedplant, finishes, built-in furniture and loose or soft furnishings. The costexcludes all equipment other than that required for the normal functioning ofthe building. Costs associated with laboratory, scientific and loose equipmentare not included in the cost. The cost includes all fees, approvals and otherincidental expenditure associated with construction and initial occupation butexcludes those costs normally included in the Insured Value such asdemolition, site clearing and the provision of temporary accommodation.

Facility Condition IndexThe Facility Condition Index (FCI) is an index number that indicates the currentcondition of the Asset measured relative to its 'as-new' condition. The FacilityCondition Index is determined by the formula:

FCI = 1 - Cost of remedying deficiencies Asset Replacement Value

5

Gross Floor Area (GFA)The sum of the Fully Enclosed Covered Area (FECA) and the UnenclosedCovered Area (UCA) of a building in square metres.

GFA = FECA + UCA

Fully Enclosed Covered Area (FECA)The sum of all fully enclosed covered areas at all building levels, includingbasements (except un-excavated portions), floored roof spaces and attics,garages, penthouses, enclosed porches and attached enclosed covered waysalongside buildings, equipment rooms, lift shafts, vertical ducts, staircasesand any other fully enclosed spaces and useable areas of the building,computed by measuring from the normal inside face of exterior walls butignoring any projections such as plinth, columns, piers and the like whichproject from the normal inside face of exterior walls. It shall not include opencourts, light wells, connecting or isolated covered walkways and net openareas of upper portions of rooms, lobbies, halls, interstitial spaces and thelike, which extend through the storey being computed. (Unit of measurementis m2).

Unenclosed Covered Area (UCA)The sum of all such areas at all building floor levels, including roofedbalconies, open verandahs, porches and porticos, attached open coveredways alongside buildings, undercrofts and useable space under buildings,unenclosed access galleries (including ground floor) and any other trafficablecovered areas of the building which are not totally enclosed by full heightwalls, computed by measuring the area between the enclosing walls orbalustrade (i.e. from the inside face of the UCA excluding the wall orbalustrade thickness). When the covering element (i.e. roof or upper floor) issupported by columns, is cantilevered or is suspended, or any combinationof these, the measurements shall be taken to the edge of the paving or to theedge of the cover, whichever is the lesser. UCA shall not include eaves,overhangs, sun shading, awnings and the like where these do not relate toclearly defined trafficable covered areas, nor shall it include connecting orisolated covered ways. (Unit of measurement is m2).

Note: all definitions in this chapter were taken from the NCRB (NationalCommittee on Rationalised Building 1991) publication ‘StandardTerminology for Facilities Management’, and from the 1999 AAPPABenchmark Survey Report.

6

Chapter 4 A Strategic Asset Management Model –Guidelines for Implementation

Introduction

Strategic Asset Management (SAM) provides institutions with the techniques tostructure and operate their assets in a way that best supports their servicedelivery aspirations. Apart from the responsibility of institutions to adopt bestpractice to maximise the value they derive from the resources they control, thereare currently pressures on them from three external sources to implement SAMpractices. These are:

• DETYA/NZ Ministry of Education - significant funding sources that haveincreasing expectations for institutions to demonstrate responsibility andaccountability in the use of their funding.

• AV-CC/NZVCC - have both demonstrated an increasing interest inbenchmarking between institutions, and facilities are included in thisbenchmarking.

• AAPPA requires Facilities Managers to demonstrate competence andcredibility, and to ensure the highest degree of professionalism in thestewardship of physical resources.

To help meet these responsibilities, institutions should put in place a StrategicAsset Management (SAM) implementation plan. The following headings outlinethe guidelines for SAM implementation, and key elements institutions shouldaddress in their plans.

The Plan:

SAM Process Ownership

The first two principles of Strategic Asset Management are:

• Assets exist only to support service delivery.• Asset planning is a key corporate activity, to be considered along with

planning for finance, human resources and information technology.

To maintain the appropriate focus on the SAM process, institutions need toidentify a SAM process owner – at executive level – who can represent the Vice-Chancellor or Chief Executive’s interests and co-ordinate the involvement ofexecutive members responsible for planning the institution’s service deliveryprogrammes. The SAM process owner needs to be able to pull together therequirements of these service delivery programmes and identify the assetimplications, along with Finance, Human Resource and Information Technologyimplications of their teaching and research strategies. The institution executivethen need to collectively decide on key asset decisions such as project priorities.

7

M

I

S

S

I

O

N

Organisation Structure

There are structural issues in all institutions that require special considerationto understand their impact on asset management decision-making processes,e.g. single campus versus multiple campuses.

These structures and the communication lines for asset management decisionsneed to be documented to ensure that effective asset decision-making occurs.The 'Planning Functions Structure' chart (Figure 1) provides a model for theserelationships in a typical institution. The diagram should be supported by adescription of various roles, responsibilities and decision-making time frames.

PLANNING FUNCTIONS STRUCTURE

Figure 1

Action Plan

To demonstrate a commitment to implementing SAM, institutions need toprepare an implementation action plan that documents specific actions, issues,priorities, dates and people. The action plan needs to be managed by the SAMprocess owner on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor or Chief Executive, and needsactive involvement by executive academic managers and senior service directors.

The following 'Awareness and Implementation of SAM' matrix (Figure 2) shouldassist your institution to identify gaps in understanding and set priorities for anaction plan. Ideally you would want to be in a position to sign off on all of theboxes deemed important to your institution.

Support Plans

IT Plan HR PlanAsset

ManagementPlan

Other Plans

Operational Plans

Core Business Teaching&

Research

AWARENESS AND IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX FOR STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT

SAM PROCESSMANAGEMENT

STRATEGICPLANNING

ASSETMANAGEMENT

PLANNING

ASSET DISPOSAL ASSETMAINTENANCE

CAPITALINVESTMENT

SAM UNDERSTOOD BYEXECUTIVE

CORE BUSINESSUNDERSTOOD ANDDEFINED

ASSET MANAGEMENTPLAN IN PLACEINCLUDING CAPITALINVESTMENT, ASSETMAINTENANCE, ASSETDISPOSAL STRATEGYAND FUNDING NEEDS

ASSET RATIONALISATIONPLAN IN PLACE

STRATEGICMAINTENANCE PLAN INPLACE

ACQUISITION ANDREFURBISHMENT PLAN INPLACE

ASSET ISSUESREGULARLYCONSIDERED BYEXECUTIVE

CORPORATE PLANINCORPORATINGPROGRAMMESTATEMENTS IN PLACE

SERVICE IMPLICATIONSOF ASSETS IDENTIFIED

UNDER-PERFORMINGAND SURPLUS ASSETSIDENTIFIED

SERVICE AGREEMENTSIN PLACE

5 YEAR FORWARD WORKSPROGRAMME IN PLACE

SAM IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN INTEGRATED INTOCORPORATE PLAN

DEMAND/CHANGEDRIVERS AND ISSUESDEFINED

CAPITAL ALLOCATIONCRITERIA DEFINED ANDBEING APPLIED

DISPOSAL OPTIONS ANDREVENUES/COSTSIDENTIFIED

CONDUCT FACILITIESAUDIT

PROGRAMME OBJECTIVESDEFINED AND LINKED TOSERVICE AIMS

SAM TOOLS ANDTECHNIQUESUNDERSTOOD

DEMAND MANAGEMENTSTRATEGIES IN PLACE

ASSET MANAGEMENTPLAN INTEGRATEDWITHIN FINANCE,HUMAN RESOURCESAND INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY.

MANAGEMENTSTRATEGIES IN PLACEFOR SURPLUS ASSETS

FACILITY JOB LISTS INPLACE

PROJECT JUSTIFICATIONPROCESS APPLIED

SAM TOOLS ANDTECHNIQUES BEINGAPPLIED

SERVICE STRATEGIESDEFINED

ASSET MANAGEMENTPLAN LINKED TOCORPORATE PLAN

DISPOSAL PROGRAMMEIN PLACE

FACILITY CONDITION,USE AND OPERATINGCOSTS RECORDED

ECONOMIC EVALUATIONBEING APPLIED

SAM PROCESSREGULARLY REVISEDAND EVALUATED

ALTERNATIVE (NON-ASSET) STRATEGIESINVESTIGATED

INFRASTRUCTUREMASTER PLAN IN PLACE

PERFORMANCEEVALUATED AGAINSTBENCHMARKS ANDREPORTED

VALUE AND RISKMANAGEMENT BEINGAPPLIED

ASSET IMPLICATIONSDEFINED

POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES IN PLACE

PROGRAMMEIMPROVEMENT

NEEDS AND COSTSASSESSED

POST OCCUPANCY REVIEWPROCESSES IN PLACE

Figure 2

8

9

Asset Plan

Institutions need to develop a pro forma Asset Management Plan,based on the following model (Figure 3), but customised to suit theinstitution’s structure, terminology and issues.

ASSET MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

* Build, Own, Operate, Transfer

Figure 3

Physical Asset Register

The starting point for capturing physical asset information is theestablishment of a register of buildings and infrastructure. Theregister could include information such as asset replacement values,year built, date of purchase/installation and estimated life, and beexpanded later to include performance, utilisation, physical condition,and future plans as the information is gathered.

SERVICE DELIVERY STRATEGY

CAPITALINVESTMENTSTRATEGIC

PLAN

ASSETMAINTENANCE

STRATEGICPLAN

ASSET DISPOSALSTRATEGIC

PLAN

ACQUIRE(NEW)

RENEWADAPT

(REFURBISH)

NON-ASSETSTRATEGIES

UTILISATION,LEASE, BOOT*,

PRIVATE SECTORFUND

MAINTAIN ANDOPERATE

DISPOSE

INSTITUTIONCOMMUNITY

ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (AMP)

CORPORATE PLAN

10

Chapter 5 The Facilities Audit

As defined in Chapter 3, a Facilities Audit is a systematic inspectionand identification of the physical and functional adequacy of facilities,with particular reference to the building fabric, services and site workscomponents, to provide an input for life-cycle cost analysis, short-term maintenance planning, long-term planning purposes, and toassess the extent of backlog maintenance.

A Facilities Audit can examine a single building (to gain theoperational benefits of quantifying the needed maintenance) or manybuildings (to obtain the strategic benefits of comparativeassessments). In either case, the Facilities Audit can be undertaken atdifferent levels of detail, and this is dealt with below.

A well-constructed and executed Facilities Audit on any buildingidentifies the existing physical condition and functional performanceof the building and its infrastructure. It should also identify codecompliance deficiencies and provide the Facilities Manager with acomplete picture of a building’s status.

A decision flow chart of a Facilities Audit is presented below andexplained in more detail in the following pages:

Step 1 - Is a Facilities Audit Required?

Step 2 - Prepare List of Physical Assets with Supporting Data

Step 3 - Define List of Building Elements(Uniformat II or NCRB)

Step 4 - Determine Level of Audit(Level 1, 2 or 3)

Step 5 - Decide Audit: a) In-House or b) Outsourced

Step 6 - Select Software to Managethe Data

Step 7 - Review Resources and Plan -Is funding sufficient?

YES

YES

Step 8 - Start Audit

NO

11

Step 1 – Is a Facilities Audit Required?

Ensure senior management supports conducting a Facilities Audit.

Step 2 – Prepare List of Physical Assets

The next step is to compile a list of the physical assets withsupporting data such as:

• Building Name and a description of construction.• Date built.• Gross Floor Area.• Asset Replacement Value (ARV).

Step 3 – Define List of Building Elements

Before considering the audit further, terms should be explained. Theorganisation will have many buildings, and each building is made upof a collection of building systems or elements:

• the primary elements (structure and fabric)• the secondary elements (interior)• the service elements (ventilation, etc.) and• the utilities (electricity, etc.)

Each of these systems or elements can be broken down into sub-systems, which can be further subdivided. There are several widelyrecognised formats describing these building elements, the mostcommonly used being the National Committee on RationalisedBuilding (NCRB); the Uniformat II descriptions, and the genericQuantity Surveyor descriptions. Each has distinct benefits and theauditor must commence by determining which format will be used.Factors to consider are:

• Compatibility with existing computerised historical recordingsystems (accounting packages, CMMS, etc.)

• Availability of unit rates for estimating replacement or maintenanceof systems and sub-systems.

• Comparability with other institutions (for AAPPA benchmarkingetc.)

For consistency of usage and benchmarking, a model building elementdescription is attached as Appendix 1. This is the Uniformat IIstructure, a Canadian/American standard that is used in Harvey H.Kaiser’s ‘The Facilities Audit – A Process for Improving FacilitiesConditions’.

12

Step 4 – Determine Level of Audit

Facilities Audits can be conducted at different levels of detail, andthree levels are described.

Level One - Desktop Overview (Fly-By)

Conducting a level one audit draws on data which already exists inthe office, but probably in many places and in different forms. Theaudit relies on theoretical life spans and broad estimating rates forreplacement valuations. The result will be a table of:

• Main building elements.• Normal or theoretical lifespan for each main element, and when

replacement is due.• Quantity Surveyor unit rates for replacing the elements.• List of known backlog maintenance.

Details may also be kept on:

• Code non-compliance.• Any significant deviation from standard lifecycle.• Planning for future use of each building.

From this data a table can be built of future expenditure of 'normal'building maintenance costs, with provisions for change of use and thecosts of code compliance. The total costs of restoring those buildingelements that are beyond the normal lifespan make up a firstevaluation of the backlog maintenance liability.

Level Two - Site Assessment (Walk Through)

This approach based on a visual site inspection is excellent where aninstitution wants to rapidly gauge the extent of its backlogmaintenance problem, and is useful as a broad-brush assessment.The three subject areas for the assessment are:

• Building elements of each building, comparing the actual statuswith theoretical.

• Functionality of the building.• Code compliance.

13

Assessment of Building ElementsBy inspection of the elements making up the building and its services;by interviewing those regularly maintaining the building elements andthirdly, by noting the comments of the users of the building, theauditor will:

• Assess the condition of each element with reference to the ‘normal’lifespan.

• Estimate the life remaining in each element.• Estimate the costs to provide the maintenance needed.• List and cost any overdue maintenance items.

Functionality of the BuildingThe auditor will rate the building for fitness of purpose throughinspection of the building and from interviews with the users. The aimis to identify and describe any building service deficiency for currentor planned future use. Although the deficiencies will be addressedthrough refurbishment as part of the capital investment strategicplan, maintenance planning must allow for foreseeable changes tomatch reality.

Code ComplianceEach building is to be assessed for compliance with statutoryrequirements (e.g. fire detection/protection compliance, disabledaccess, ventilation etc.). Again, while funds for upgrading services tomeet these requirements may come from the capital investmentstrategic plan, the level of non-compliance and the costs involved tocomply may have a bearing on the future use of the building, and thiswill be reflected in maintenance planning.

As a result of this assessment, the audit will:

• List and cost any overdue maintenance of building systems.• List and describe any shortfall in statutory requirements or fitness

for use.

Level Three - Detailed Examination (Crawl Through)

This level audit encompasses the level two site assessment, plusthrough detailed investigation it assesses the parts making up eachbuilding element. Where the level two assessment considered roofing,this assessment looks at roof cladding, gutters, downpipes andpenetrations. Where the maintenance had been costed for a totalsystem (e.g. air handling), this level of inspection will quantify andcost the replacement ducting, controls and motors (allowing for thepracticalities of available access conditions, etc.)

14

Variable Level of Audit DetailBefore commencing the audit, the level of detail to assess needs to bechosen for each situation. For some small and insignificant buildingson the campus, assessment will only recognise the whole building. Forthe more complex or significant buildings, the huge replacement costor the importance of certain buildings will warrant a very closeinspection of the whole building, or at least its main elements. Theaudit will allow for this variable assessment through the use of thestructured building elements table. Assessments of greater detail willbe rolled up into the more general groups. The software chosen forstoring and reporting the data will need to allow for this roll-up.

Step 5 – Decide In-House or Outsourced

Staffing for the Audit Assessment

There are two main ways of conducting a Facilities Audit: doing thedata collection in-house, or outsourcing with another variation being acombination of both methods.

The treatment of the audit data has different phases, and staffresources for the audit can be selected accordingly.

Data Treatment Personnel

Initial Data Capture Consultants can achieve datacapture in a specific time-frame.

In-house staff can provide inputand be data custodians.

Ongoing DataMaintenance

In-house staff can includeupdating data with their dailyactivities.

Enhancement ofData

This refers to improving the level ofdetail in target areas and can behandled by either consultants orin-house staff.

The responses to the above options will help determine whether tochoose in-house, outsourcing or a combination of both.

Frequency of Auditing

The frequency of the audit will be a function of the cost of the auditand the rate of data degradation - say, five years. With an on-goingaudit, a cycle to cover the whole building stock over three years wouldensure that the data remains accurate.

15

Step 6 – Select Software to Manage the Data

Audit Software

The approach to Facilities Auditing chosen will have implications forthe computer systems selected to store and manipulate the auditdata. A one-off snapshot audit will probably be handled in aspreadsheet, designed to provide a situation report. An ongoingprocedure will be best handled using custom software developedaround a database that permits stable updating of data (includinginflationary effects) and preparation of status reports for periodicanalysis. Information can be manipulated and used at any stage toproduce reports for senior management. There are many examples ofsoftware available including:

Facman www.physicalplant.wwu.edu/facman

Facility Auditmate www.telligence.net

ISES FCAWIN 32 www.isescorp.com

Facman is the only product currently in use in the Australasianregion.

Step 7 – Review Resources and Plan

Prepare an estimate of the time and cost of the processes selected inSteps 4-6, and if funding is insufficient, review choices and re-assess.

Priority Rating

Data for individual buildings can be enhanced and qualified by theuse of ratings. The ratings that have been found useful are:

Condition Rating The Facility Condition Index iscalculated from the backlogmaintenance and the replacementvalue.

Risk Rating Rating based on issues of safety,health and the impact onacademic objectives.

Importance Rating Rating based on issues of relativeimportance for the presentation ofthe institution.

Functional Rating Rating of the use efficiency basedon useable area, flexibility of useand useable condition.

Further details of these ratings are included in Appendix 2.

16

Chapter 6 Managing the Facilities Audit

Community expectations of services and assets in the highereducation sector have not diminished in the wake of changingeconomic circumstances. There is still a strong perception that it isobligatory for government to provide all of the public’s wants as wellas its essential needs, regardless of what the community can afford.

This can result in community (internal and external) dissatisfaction inthe performance of institutional governance. To counter this,institutions need to adopt strategic policies relating to services andasset provision. There is a need to be pro-active, rather than reactivewhen dealing with asset management and the community needs to bebetter informed on all aspects of this area.

At all times it is essential to keep in mind what the purpose is ofundertaking a Facilities Audit , and how the information will be used.

• Taking a strategic approach means not only having an AssetManagement Plan in place as the foundation for undertaking aFacilities Audit of buildings and infrastructure, but linking theoutput to the budget process.

• One of the key issues concerning Facilities Managers is the lackof funds being provided for maintenance (recent AAPPA Survey).A properly designed Facilities Audit provides information that isirrefutable and dramatic. There are numerous examples, both inAustralia and the USA, where information obtained fromconducting a Facilities Audit has achieved significant increasesin allocated funds for maintenance. Facilities Managers cannotignore this evidence, and have to find the resources toundertake a Facilities Audit and ensure it is reported at thehighest level.

• To be effective the Facilities Audit cannot be a one-off snapshot;it must be an ongoing process that progressively captures thedynamic volume of backlog maintenance.

• The AAPPA Benchmark survey has developed significantcredibility not only in the higher education sector, but outsideas well. The one area where it is particularly weak, however, isin recording backlog maintenance. It is important not only toobtain comparative information on the backlog maintenance,but to obtain a cumulative figure to provide a nationalperspective.

17

A recent infrastructure report undertaken by the Institution ofEngineers, Australia, received a lot of publicity both in the politicalarena and in the media when it was released. We believe that a similarreport on the backlog maintenance of higher education infrastructurein Australia and New Zealand would achieve the same response andhighlight a significant problem that cannot be ignored.

This document outlines the reasons why and how you should conducta Facilities Audit. To make it happen now requires commitment andresources. You need to put someone in charge of the process. Thisperson must be given the authority and the necessary resources to dothe job. Those experienced in conducting Facilities Audits all say it isessential to have a 'champion' who is responsible, and has theresources and position to drive the project.

“If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it” is a well known saying,and it is so true with maintenance and the management of assets. Theprocess suggested in this document provides a framework to ensureyou can measure where you are, and hence ensure you are aresponsible manager of assets.

So, instead of complaining that there is not enough money formaintenance, do something about it. To get started, appoint someoneto the task, provide them with this document, go to Chapter 5 andstart at Step 1. It is as easy as that, and remember, AAPPA is there tohelp.

Good luck!

The AAPPA Information Services Committee welcomes comments orsuggestions for improvements to this document. Please address them to:

Alan Egan a.egan@unsw.edu.au or

Neville Thiele neville.thiele@unisa.edu.au

18

Appendix 1

Uniformat II Classification for Building Elements

Level 1Major Group Elements

Level 2Group Elements

Level 3Individual Elements

A10 Foundations A1010 Standard FoundationsA1020 Special FoundationsA1030 Slab on Grade

A SUBSTRUCTURE

A20 Basement Construction A2010 Basement ExcavationA2020 Basement Walls

B10 Superstructure B1010 Floor ConstructionB1020 Roof Construction

B20 Exterior Enclosure B2010 Exterior WallsB2020 Exterior WindowsB2030 Exterior Doors

B SHELL

B30 Roofing B3010 Roof CoveringsB3020 Roof Openings

C10 Interior Construction C1010 PartitionsC1020 Interior DoorsC1030 Fittings

C20 Stairs C2010 Stair ConstructionC2020 Stair Finishes

C INTERIORS

C30 Interior Finishes C3010 Wall FinishesC3020 Floor FinishesC3030 Ceiling Finishes

D10 Conveying D1010 Elevators & LiftsD1020 Escalators & Moving WalksD1090 Other Conveying Systems

D20 Plumbing D2010 Plumbing FixturesD2020 Domestic Water DistributionD2030 Sanitary WasteD2040 Rain Water DrainageD2090 Other Plumbing Systems

D30 HVAC D3010 Energy SupplyD3020 Heat Generating SystemsD3030 Cooling Generating SystemsD3040 Distribution SystemsD3050 Terminal & Package UnitsD3060 Controls & InstrumentationD3070 Systems Testing & BalancingD3090 Other HVAC Systems & Equipment

D40 Fire Protection D4010 SprinklersD4020 StandpipesD4030 Fire Protection SpecialtiesD4090 Other Fire Protection Systems

D SERVICES

D50 Electrical D5010 Electrical Service & DistributionD5020 Lighting and Branch WiringD5030 Communications & SecurityD5090 Other Electrical Systems

E10 Equipment E1010 Commercial EquipmentE1020 Institutional EquipmentE1030 Vehicular EquipmentE1090 Other Equipment

E EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS

E20 Furnishings E2010 Fixed FurnishingsE2020 Movable Furnishings

F10 Special Construction F1010 Special StructuresF1020 Integrated ConstructionF1030 Special Construction SystemsF1040 Special FacilitiesF1050 Special Controls and Instrumentation

F SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION

F20 Selective Building Demolition F2010 Building Elements DemolitionF2020 Hazardous Components Abatement

19

Appendix 2

Condition Rating

ConditionStatus

General Description FacilityCondition

ConditionRating (C)

Demolish Asset has deteriorated badly; serious structural problems;general appearance is poor with eroded protectivecoatings; elements are broken, services are notperforming; significant number of major defects exist.

0.00 to 0.19 1

Poor Asset is in poor condition; deteriorated surfaces requiresignificant attention; services are functional but failingoften; significant backlog maintenance work exists.

0.20 to 0.49 2

Fair Asset is in average condition; deteriorated surfacesrequire attention; services are functional, but requireattention; backlog maintenance work exists.

0.50 to 0.74 3

Good Asset exhibits superficial wear and tear, minor defects,minor signs of deterioration to surface finishes; but doesnot require major maintenance; no major defects exist.

0.75 to 0.94 4

VeryGood

Asset has no defect; appearance is an new. 0.95 to 1.00 5

Risk Rating

RiskStatus

General Description RiskRating (R)

StatutoryMaintenance

Asset is unusable in current condition. Immediate high risk tosecurity, health and safety, property damage, significant costimplication. Should not be used in current condition.

1

Requiressignificant riskmanagement

Major disruption to service capability. High probability of risk tohealth and safety or property, high cost implication/financial loss.Requires high levels of intervention.

2

Below generalstandard, requiressome riskmanagement

Intermittent disruptions and inconvenience to operations.Probability of risk to health and safety or property is minor;medium level cost implication. Requires regular checking andmonitoring.

3

Reasonablestandard

Intermittent, minor inconvenience to operations. Probability of riskto health and safety or property is slight, low cost implication.Does not require regular checking and monitoring.

4

Maintained atgood generalstandard

No effect on service capability. No risk. 5

20

Importance Rating

ImportanceStatus

General Description ImportanceRating (I)

Not Important Facility is due for demolition or otherwise has a very low use or profile. 1

LowImportance

Facility is useable as is and is not to be replaced when it falls into furtherdisrepair. It is not highly visible e.g. a farm shed which has been replacedby a newer facility.

2

Fair Importance Temporary buildings or facilities which need to remain active and in usebut which would be replaced by a permanent building if funds wereavailable.

3

Important General institution buildings for teaching, research and administrationand which are of a permanent construction.

4

Very important Buildings and facilities that have a high public profile or to whichbenefactors or official visitors to the institution are often invited e.g.Chancellery, library, major lecture theatres, performing arts venues andgalleries.

5

Functionality Rating

FunctionalStatus

General Description FacilityFunctional

Index

FunctionalRating (F)

Not functional Facility is very inefficient in the use of utilities, hasan area efficiency of less than 40%, or requires morethan 80% of ARV to refurbish.

0.00 to 0.19 1

Low functionality Facility has area efficiency between 40% and 50%and requires between 50% and 80% of ARV torefurbish.

0.20 to 0.49 2

Fair functionality Facility has area efficiency between 50% and 65%,has accessible service paths although services are outof date, and requires between 25% and 50% of ARVto refurbish.

0.50 to 0.74 3

Functional Building efficiency is between 65% and 75%,services are reasonably up to date and has sparecapacity, requires less than 25% of ARV to refurbish.

0.75 to 0.94 4

Veryfunctional

Building efficiency is over 75%, building layout isvery flexible and can be adapted with minimal effort,less than 5% ARV.

0.95 to 1.00 5

Rating Weight

Condition 50%Risk 25%Importance 10%Functionality 15%

Overall % rating = [ (C x 0.50 + R x 0.25 + I x 0.10 + F x 0.15) x 20 ]

The overall rating is used to determine priority in the allocation of resources to projects.