Slide 1

13 th February 2009

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

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:

Slide 7

Non ResidentialResidential

Slide 8

Non ResidentialResidential Definitions of condition ratings (RICS): A As new condition BSound, operationally safe and exhibiting only minor deterioration COperational, but major repair or replacement needed in the short to medium term (generally 3 years) DInoperable, or at serious risk of major failure or breakdown Definitions of condition ratings (RICS): A As new condition BSound, operationally safe and exhibiting only minor deterioration COperational, but major repair or replacement needed in the short to medium term (generally 3 years) DInoperable, or at serious risk of major failure or breakdown

Slide 9

Non ResidentialResidential

Slide 10

Slide 11

Non ResidentialResidential

Slide 12

Non ResidentialResidential Definitions of functional suitability ratings (HEFCE): 1Excellent; the rooms/buildings fully support current functions. (highly suitable) 2Good; the rooms/buildings provide a good environment for the current function in all or most respects. (suitable) 3Fair; the rooms/buildings provide a reasonable environment for current functions in many respects, but has a number of shortfalls. (generally unsuitable) 4Poor; the rooms/buildings fail to support current functions and/or are unsuitable for current use. (very unsuitable) Definitions of functional suitability ratings (HEFCE): 1Excellent; the rooms/buildings fully support current functions. (highly suitable) 2Good; the rooms/buildings provide a good environment for the current function in all or most respects. (suitable) 3Fair; the rooms/buildings provide a reasonable environment for current functions in many respects, but has a number of shortfalls. (generally unsuitable) 4Poor; the rooms/buildings fail to support current functions and/or are unsuitable for current use. (very unsuitable)

Slide 13

Non ResidentialResidential

Slide 14

Non ResidentialResidential

Slide 15

Slide 16

13 th February 2009

Slide 17

Slide 18

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 SLAs.

Slide 19

Like for like comparison To make comparisons against Universities equal, a base level of 150,000m was used. The base level was achieved by factoring up or down from the current occupied area of the Universities campuses.

Slide 20

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

Slide 21

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.

Slide 22

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

Slide 23

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

Slide 24

Total Resource Levels Resource per 150,000m - 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)

Slide 25

Management Resource Levels per 150,000m 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)

Slide 26

Workload Comparator - Cleaning Lancaster has the highest area cleaned per hour per operative than all other Universities within the review

Slide 27

Utilities Usage

Slide 28

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.

Slide 29

13 th February 2009

Slide 30

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 years 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.

Slide 31

Slide 32

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 years 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.

Slide 33

13 th February 2009