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
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.
Recommended Professionals for Evaluation
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
Recommended Professionals for Evaluation
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
Recommended Professionals for Evaluation
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