collaborative strategies for building evaluations: who, what and...

Collaborative Strategies for Building Evaluations: Who, What and When?

5/28/20191

GAPPA 2019

Who, What, When, and How?

Recommended assessment types at key building milestones.

Systems and areas reviewed.

Professionals/disciplines required to conduct evaluations.

Data used by facility managers for facility maintenance budget planning.

Key points in system lifecycles where capital or significant maintenance/repair investments can maximize lifecycle extension.

When to avoid expending dollars on systems that are destined for failure.

Post new construction building project lifecycle examples

5/30/20192

Why? Facility Manager Point of View

Challenges: Time/busy Number of facilities Maintenance

manpower/Staffing Lack of understanding of

what to address over 5 years

Quarterly needs

5/30/20193

Advantages of Building Evaluations: Prioritization Funding - Board of Regents/

Foundations‒ Clear view of needs,

i.e., funding, approvals Capital project requests Consolidation and organization

of efforts Provides data for Master Plans Existing spaces review for

future planning Informs Higher Ed Leadership

Project Conception to Performance Cycle

5/30/20194

Ideas Spatial needs Land requirement Budget constraints Desired schedule

Concept DD’s CD’s Bids

Staging Site Development Infrastructure Structure Envelope Building Envelope Interiors

Commissioning Warranties Annual Maintenance Long Term Capital Reserve Custodial (APPA)

PROGRAMMING PHASE DESIGN PHASE FACILITY OPERATIONS, USE & MAINTENANCE PHASE

50+ YEARS

$ $$$ $$$$$+

Stakeholder Involvement

5/30/20195

Concept Design Reviews Construction Document Reviews Construction Reviews Closeout Review/Acceptance Review Warranty Review

Project Stakeholders

Board of Regents (Project Management)

University (Facilities) GSFIC (Funding oversight)

Design Team/Specialists Construction Team

University Facility‒ Directors‒ Technical/Maintenance‒ Architects

Closeout Review/Acceptance Review Warranty Review Facility Condition Assessments APPA Reviews (Custodial) Maintenance/Annual and Long Term Maintaining efficient and healthy system

operations

Programming and Design Phases

5/30/20196

Pre-Construction (PPR)Reports/ Review Types

Pre-Construction Review (PPR) Schematic 50% construction documents 95% construction documents

Recommended Professionals for Evaluations

Architect MEP Engineer Structural

AreasReviewed

Technical Reports (Geotechnical) Budgets Schedules Contracts (Design, construction and

specialty consultants) Construction Documents

‒ Building envelope systems‒ Waterproofing‒ Accessibility (ADA/FHA)‒ Interior/Functional requirements‒ OSHA‒ Site Work/Infrastructure/Flood Plains‒ Structural (Seismic)

5/30/20197

Closeout and WarrantyReports/ Review Types

Closeout Warranty - General Contractor notice prior to labor warranty expiration

Recommended Professionals for Evaluation

Architect/Owner Rep MEP Engineers Structural Engineers Civil Engineers Interiors

Architect/Owner Rep MEP Engineers Structural (Optional) Interiors (optional)

AreaReviewed

Punch Completion/Verification

Closeout/ O&M Documents Warranty Requirements Interview Facility Operators Commissioning completion

and acceptance Verification of system and

installation quality per design requirements

Interview Facility Operators System Performance

Review‒ Building envelope‒ MEP/Life Safety systems‒ Site systems‒ Interior finish systems

5/30/20198

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Very beginning of building life Fresh eyes at Substantial Completion Appropriate commission, test/balance, system functions, etc. Licensed MEP and Architect Warranty in effect (roof, mechanics, etc.) Prior to warranty expirations around 9-11 month mark after construction completion Assessment of building systems – MEP, envelope, site conditions, etc. Full cycle year system check Property Management, Facility Manager, etc. interviews Warrant Report issued putting Contractor on notice to fix 3rd party team of registered Architect and/or Engineer to review and provide stamped letter

Facility Operations, Use and Maintenance Phase

5/30/20199

FCAReports/ Review Types

FCA Recommended Intervals 4-6 years* (first assessment typically) Every 5 years 20 years* Different building types will affect/change intervals*Note: It’s important to track later years repairs internally.


Architect MEP Engineer Structural (optional) Interiors

Systems Reviewed

Building envelope (roof, walls, windows/ storefronts, curtainwalls) MEP and Life Safety systems (HVAC, plumbing, electrical,

fire protection, alarm, vertical transportation) Exterior/Site (accessibility, pedestrian and vehicular paving,

parking, hard and soft scape) Interiors (accessibility [ADA/FHA], finishes, FF&E [optional]) Structural systems

5/30/201910

Specialists (as needed)‒ Vertical Circulation‒ Building Envelope‒ Fire Protection‒ Paving‒ Infrared

APPA

Reports/ Review Types

APPA Every year (optimum) Typical University building types

‒ Student Housing‒ Centers‒ Libraries‒ Primarily common area spaces


Facility Specialist or Architect or Interior Designer MEP Engineers

Systems Reviewed

Maintenance levels‒ Building systems Reliability‒ Interior/Exterior Aesthetics‒ Regulatory Compliance‒ Service Efficiency‒ Maintenance Mix

Custodial effectiveness Grounds maintenance

5/30/201911

Forensic/Phase IIReports/ Review Types

Forensic/Phase II Systemic or significant distress* Proposed building

renovations/modifications Reactionary*Determined by FCA Team or Facility Manager’s observations


Architect (forensic evaluation focus) Engineers (MEP, Life Safety,

Structural [if required])OR Specialty Consultants

‒ Roof/Building envelope‒ Skylight/Curtainwall‒ Environmental‒ Thermography

Systems Reviewed

Based on observations of systemic issues, distress, system failures or previous reports

5/30/201912

Key Areas to Consider for Facility Evaluations

5/30/201913

Life Cycle Reviews - Threshold

Typical assessments performed 5, 10, 15, 20, 30-year marks

5-year Review (4–6 years; 10-20% of Lifecyle)‒ Period of slow degradation‒ Degradation speed quickly increases down after year 6

20-year assessment is very important‒ Major envelope and mechanical cycles come due‒ Higher risk

Identify system maintenance needs‒ Improper installation, curling, displacement‒ Premature failure

5/30/201914

Building Types/Considerations

Basis of assessment timing:‒ Use (parking, administration, storage, education, student

housing)‒ Geographic location (coast vs. inland)‒ Historic/unique buildings (20+ years)‒ New building vs. renovation/restoration

Age of building and frequency of previous FCAs

5/30/201915

Different Building Types = Different Requirements

Various Building Functions

Classrooms/Lecture Halls Offices Student Housing Libraries Laboratories Auditoriums/Stages/Stadiu

ms Storage Architectural Sidewalks Parking / Paving systems Janitorial/MEP/Core Utilization

5/30/201916

Different building functions will affect the scope of the review and professional disciplines required!

Unique Building Types

Parking Garages Assessment required every 2.5 years More wear and tear:

‒ Pedestrian safety and access‒ Weather Impact‒ Automobile use

Historic Buildings (50+ years) Bringing up to par/renovating for current use Modifications to meet current standards ADA compliance/Accessibility Program requirements/Lack of program

5/30/201917

Required vs. Good Idea

5/30/201918

FCA’s required for Private/Private Ventures (PPV) Refinancing of loans/bonds and rental agreements Lending agencies want to know if their investments are well

managed and maintained Review of needs & opinions from old reports is

recommended Following a scheduled assessment plan through the life of

the building is recommended. Cost associated with not assessing your buildings will lead to missed opportunities for:‒ Increased ROI‒ Increased life cycles‒ Efficient operations/energy‒ Happier users‒ Better budget planning

Case Studies

5/30/201919

• Gardens of Germantown

Roof - Premature Degradation Example

5/30/201920

ISSUE: Widespread leaks (Over 40 reported and identified) and moisture infiltration affecting the vast majority of the roof area, at this Memory Care facility built in 2010 in TN. Owner purchased building in 2014; and failed to transfer the roof warranty or conduct repairs recommended in the FCA.ASSESMENT: A Phase II - visual and thermal inspection of roof components via up-close inspection and through infrared scan utilizing a drone mounted FlirE53 thermal imaging camera. CONCLUSION: The cause of the leaks appeared to be a premature failure of the roof membrane adhesion likely related to asphalt moisture and temperature issues at the time of installation. Damaged EIFS coping cap could also have contributed to the moisture issues.RECOMMENDATION: Due to the widespread moisture infiltration into the roof assembly, and the potential for damaged wood decking, individual or isolated repairs were not likely to be an effective long term approach with respect to cost and performance. A complete tear off and replacement of the existing roof assembly was recommended.

Negative Pressurization ExampleISSUE: 5 year old Student Center on University campus with large kitchen and dining hall was operating with negative pressurization bringing in high humidity that caused organic matter growth in the ceiling tiles at the corridor and dining areas. ASSESMENT: A full Facility Condition Assessment per ASTM standards including a visual inspection of all building systems Including HVAC, and interview of maintenance personnel.

CONCLUSION: The building commercial kitchen included an intricate exhaust system with variable volume control that was bypassed by the campus maintenance because they did not fully understand how the system was supposed to work.The design was too complicated for the maintenance personnel level and the exhaust system was not commissioned properly; therefore, the exhaust was not performing to specifications. Maintenance chose to override the system to keep the exhaust fans working full time.

RECOMMENDATION: Re-commission the entire HVAC system, and adjust exhaust systems to work as designed to avoid negative pressurization. Train maintenance team.

5/30/201921

Chiller Component Failures - Example ISSUE: 5 year old Student Center building on University Campus with air cooled chiller; which is the largest HVAC equipment in the building; with two compressors, valves, and other parts.ASSESMENT: A full Facility Condition Assessment per ASTM standards including a visual inspection of all building systems Including HVAC, and interview of maintenance personnel. CONCLUSION: Chiller components were replaced earlier than expected; without using equipment manufacturer warranty. Mechanical contractor was not contacted or held accountable for HVAC systems not working as designed. Replacement of parts or major components in an HVAC system still under warranty may void the original warranty.RECOMMENDATION: Mechanical contractor should be held accountable for installation of systems that failed to work properly early in the use cycle. Maintenance team should expect that systems operate as specified when building is completed and thereafter check if systems are still under warranty if early replacements are required.

5/30/201922

Key Points in System Life Cycles

5/30/201923

Condition Index

5/30/201924

SEVERITY

DISTRESS

QUANTITY

FCI Excellent Good Fair - Poor

0% 5% 10% 50% 100%

Condition Index Prediction

5/30/201925

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20252020Year

60

20

80

40

100

CI

Expected SL = 20

Condition Unreliable

SL = 17 years

Inspection 1Inspection 2

Inspection 3

Construction/Installation

“Economic Sweet Spot”

0

Parking Lots (55) Repair

Customized Work Creation

5/30/201926

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20252020

Year

60

20

80

40

100

CI

SL Gain

CI Gain

0

Condition Unreliable

“Economic Sweetspot”

Facility Maintenance Budget and Schedule Planning

5/30/201927

FCAR Due Dates Schedule – PPV/Non-PPV

5/30/201928

Putting the Age of Your Campus in Context

5/30/201929

The age of the facilities drives the overall risk profile

Putting the Age of Your Campus in Context

5/30/201930

The age of the facilities drives the overall risk profile

Campus Age Profile

5/30/201931

Summary

Building life cycle requires important evaluation dates and different evaluation reports.

Building types, age, geographic location, and past evaluations have a direct impact on building performance for the future.

Not assessing your building in a timely schedule will lead to missed opportunities.

Understanding the cycle of system degradation and the timing to invest in the “Economic Sweetspot” of systems will lead to a higher ROI.

Defining the age of your campus buildings is key to understanding the risk profile and budget resource allocations.

5/30/201932

Thank you!

Ray A. Sable Director of Physical Plant and Facilities Planning

Valdosta State University229.333.5875 | [email protected]

Alan M. Sanderson Associate Director of Facilities Planning

Valdosta State University229.333.5880 | [email protected]

Edward A. Bernard, AIAVice President, Regional Manager

Marx|Okubo Associates770.407.2900 | [email protected]

5/30/201933