los angeles community college district program …

Building for tomorrow’s leaders 1

Los Angeles Community College District PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Early Buy Out of 2009 Solar Photovoltaic System at Colleges

Facilities Master Planning and Oversight Committee September 21, 2016


Summary of District Photovoltaic Systems

• There are 6 solar photovoltaic (PV) systems at Harbor, Pierce, East and Southwest requiring early lease buyout decisions:

# College Project Name Manufacturer System Size (kW DC)

1 LAHC Carports - Parking Lots 6 & 8 - Phase 1 Schott 1,118.4

2 LAHC Carports - Parking Lot 6 & 7 - Phase 2 Schott 988.8

3 LAPC Carports - Parking Lot 6 Solar World 798.0

4 ELAC Thin-Film Roof Mounted PV Systems at CDC, MG, WG, AUD, PF & AS Unisolar 308.9

5 ELAC Carports - NW Parking PV System Expansion - Phase 2 Kyocera 305.8

6 LASC Carports - Parking Lot 3 Solar World 724.5


Each PV Lease Involves 3 Contracts Ground Lease – 35-year, no cost lease of PV Sites to CCD Solar

Master Equipment Lease (MEL) – 20-year equipment lease from CCD Solar with only two purchase options: Early Buyout in year 6 at set price or end of lease at Fair Market Value (FMV) • Early Buyout deadline is Oct 30, 2016. No other buyout until end

of lease. • If neither buyout option is exercised District must dismantle and

return system to Lessor unless Lessor elects to keep system in place through remaining 15 years of Ground Lease and power no longer belongs to College

O&M Agreement – 20-year contract with Chevron Energy Solutions (now Opterra Energy Services). • Maintenance required only to meet guaranteed power output or

payment to District for power shortfalls. • This is not a warranty repair contract • O&M contracts remain in place after EBO at College’s discretion


PV System Buyouts - Status Update • Independent Fair Market Value (FMV) assessment for 2009 EBO and

buyout contract Good Faith review by Outside Counsel complete

Buyout Alternatives:

PV System Alternative I

Execute total or partial buyout of leases per EBO date and set price for systems.

PV System Alternative II

Continue to make annual payments for the remaining 14 years of the lease and buyout at FMV. Funding for buyout at end of lease have not been reserved.

PV System Alternative III

Continue to make annual payments for the remaining 14 years of the lease and then dismantle and return to lessor.


System 1 – LAHC: 1118.4kW Carport

Considerations • Schott panel glass is

flaking. • System is performing

above energy projection

Recommendation: Exercise EBO of $2,055,765 Alternative I $2,055,765 EBO _________ $2,055,765 Total

Alternative II $2,101,706 Lease $1,131,003 FMV buyout $3,232,709 Total

Alternative III $2,101,706 Lease $2,578,768 Return $4,680,474 Total

EBO price $2,055,765 Remaining lease $2,101,706 FMV buyout $1,131,003 Dismantle & return $2,578,768 Replacement cost $3,932,201 Energy production +6.5% NPV 20 years $1,683,721 NPV 30 years $2,814,724 ROI Alternative I 240% ROI Alternative II 94% ROI Alternative III -6%


System 2 – LAHC: 988.8kW Carport

Considerations • Schott panel glass is

flaking • System is performing


Alternative I $2,128,434 EBO _________ $2,128,434 Total

Alternative II $2,349,164 Lease $ 644,623 FMV buyout $2,993,787 Total

Alternative III $2,349,164 Lease $2,297,474 Return $4,646,638 Total

Recommendation: Exercise EBO of $2,128,434

EBO price $2,128,434 Remaining lease $2,349,164 FMV buyout $644,623 Dismantle & return $2,297,474 Replacement cost $3,471,804 Energy production +1.3% NPV 20 years $1,472,632 NPV 30 years $2,117,255 ROI Alternative I 161% ROI Alternative II 69% ROI Alternative III -18%


System 3 – LAPC: 798kW Carport

Considerations • System is performing


Alternative I $898,511 EBO _______ $898,511 Total

Alternative II $ 963,125 Lease $ 843,997 FMV buyout $1,807,122 Total

Alternative III $ 963,125 Lease $2,509,341 Return $3,472,466 Total

Recommendation: Exercise EBO of $898,511

EBO price $898,511 Remaining lease $963,125 FMV buyout $843,997 Dismantle & return $2,509,341 Replacement cost $2,486,569 Energy production +8.7% NPV 20 years $1,531,560 NPV 30 years $2,375,557 ROI Alternative I 206% ROI Alternative II 90% ROI Alternative III -37%


System 4 – ELAC: 308.9kW Roof Thin Film

Considerations • System is integral with

roof • System is performing

below projection • O&M contract energy

performance guarantee bundled with System 5

• Current FMV $602,355


Alternative II $ 34,687 Lease $288,449 FMV buyout $323,136 Total

Alternative III $ 34,687 Lease $418,133 Return $452,820 Total


EBO price $222,408 Remaining lease $34,687 FMV buyout $288,449 Dismantle & return $418,133 Replacement cost $1,277,272 Energy production -8.1% NPV 20 years $562,589 NPV 30 years $851,038 ROI Alternative I 294% ROI Alternative II 209% ROI Alternative III 72%


System 5 – ELAC: 305.8kW Carport

Considerations • O&M contract energy

performance guarantee is bundled with System 4


Alternative II $130,425 Lease $340,425 FMV buyout $470,555 Total

Alternative III $ 130,425 Lease $ 939,668 Return $1,070,093 Total


EBO price $242,791 Remaining lease $130,425 FMV buyout $340,130 Dismantle & return $939,668 Replacement cost $1,095,382 Energy production -3.8% NPV 20 years $645,360 NPV 30 years $985,490 ROI Alternative I 281% ROI Alternative II 171% ROI Alternative III -9%


System 6 – LASC: 724.5kW Carport

Considerations • System is out performing

energy projection


Alternative II $ 265,591 Lease $1,026,067 FMV buyout $1,291,658 Total

Alternative III $ 265,591 Lease $2,762,944 Return $3,028,535 Total


EBO price $471,140 Remaining lease $265,591 FMV buyout $1,026,067 Dismantle & return $2,762,944 Replacement cost $2,302,363 Energy production +6.0% NPV 20 years $1,858,518 NPV 30 years $2,884,585 ROI Alternative I 418% ROI Alternative II 197% ROI Alternative III -14%


2009 Solar PV System Summary

It is recommended that the District exercise the EBO option for all systems (Alternative I)

• EBO option execution date: 10/30/2016

• 2009 Solar PV Bank Escrow Account balance as of September 30, 2016 – $6,116,385

• Alternative I EBO – $6,019,049

• Alternative II Lease and FMV buyout – $10,118,697

• Alternative III Lease and return – $17,351,026


Appendix


Financial Analysis of EBO

Financial analysis is based on:

Independent FMV analysis cost estimates for equipment and components including invertor replacement

Actual power production vs. guarantied production

Exclusion of O&M costs

NPV analysis at 20 years (lease duration) and 30 years (useful life of the system)

FMV at end of 20 year lease period was estimated to be the value of the power generation less O&M costs and inverter replacement costs at the end of the 30 year system life


Schott Panel Glass Cracking • Lease agreement is similar to a car lease

– O&M agreement is for energy output not repair – As Lessee, LACCD has responsibility for PV system

including casualty insurance

• Chevron has transferred all action to Opterra Energy Services & refuses to take any further action

• LACCD has not approved assign- ment of contract to Opterra

• Recommend proceeding with Repair project development


LAHC

Parking Lot 7, Phase 2





LAPC

Parking Lot 6


ELAC – Phase 2 - Northwest Parking Lot Solar Photovoltaic Array

Phase 2


ELAC Roof Mounted Thin-Film PV Systems

A1 – Child Development Center

G3 - Auditorium

C1 – Men’s Gymnasium H9 – Plant Facilities

P1 – Auto Technology

E9 - Women’s Gymnasium


LASC

Parking Lot 3

Building for tomorrow’s leaders

Place Campus logo here

11/08/13 – R8

[year] Facilities Master Plan Update

Los Angeles Southwest College School of Math + Science

September 21, 2016

Facilities Master Planning and Oversight Committee

1



11/08/13 – R8


PROJECT DESCRIPTION • New Lecture Hall & Lab Building • Two Story • 26,790 SF • Type V-B • Steel Framed • Fully Sprinklered SCHEDULE ESTIMATED CONTRACT VALUE $15.5M- $16.0M PROJECT DELIVERY Design-Build

Design Phase Completion: Projected DSA Permit:

Construction Substantial Completion: Close-Out Phase Completion:

Spring Quarter

Nov. 2016 Sep. 2017 Dec. 2018 Jan. 2019 Feb. 2019

2



11/08/13 – R8


PROGRAM DESCRIPTION School of Math + Science INSTRUCTIONAL SPACES 1 LARGE LECTURE HALL 9 LABS • Physiology Lab • Biology Lab • Anatomy Lab • Biotech Lab • Micro Biology Lab • Geology Lab • Physical Science Lab • 2 Chemistry Labs

3

10 FACULTY OFFICES • 9 Office Spaces • 1 Dean’s Office



11/08/13 – R8


SUSTAINABLE GOAL LEED Certified SUSTAINABLE FEATURES Energy Efficient Strategies • 20% - 24% Energy Savings • High Efficiency Mechanical Systems • LED Light Fixtures • “Cool” Roofing System • High Performance Building

Envelope Water Use Reduction • Water Use Reduction by 25% - 30% • Water Efficient Landscaping

(50% Savings) • Drought Tolerant Planting

Recycling Strategies • Recycling Stations • Recycled Materials • Construction Waste

Management Interior Environments • Low VOC Interior Materials • Low Maintenance & Durable

Materials • Walk-Off Mats • Glazing to Maximize Daylight

4



11/08/13 – R8


School of Math + Science Building

Campus Map

Scale: NTS

N

5



11/08/13 – R8


Site Plan

NEW MATH + SCIENCE

BUILDING

POTENTIAL FUTURE

BUILDING AREA

Scale: NTS

N

6



11/08/13 – R8


Floor Plan Level 1

General Biology Lab

Anatomy Lab

Physiology Lab

Men’s

Women’s

Janitor

Elect. Prep. Room

Elev. EQP

Mech.

Study Room

Micro Biology Lab

Biology Stock Room

Lecture Hall

Prep Room

Data Hazmat

Autoclave

Specimen

Prep Room

Anatomy Stock

Fac Rec. Dean’s

Office

Office 2

Office 3

Office 4

Office 5

Office 6

Office 7

Office 8

Office 9

Office 10

UNI

Conf. Room

Scale: NTS

N

36 36 36

80 36

# Number of Students

7



11/08/13 – R8


Floor Plan Level 2

Chemistry Lab

Chemistry Stock Room

Chemistry Lab Prep

Room

Instr

Hazmat

Biotech (W) Lab

Geology Lab

Geo Stock Room

Physical Science Lab

Corridor

Prep Data Elect

Jan

Shaft

Roof Deck

Ext. Corridor

Scale: NTS

N

36 36 36

36 36

# Number of Students

8



11/08/13 – R8


Perspective Views

Southeast Aerial View

Deep Overhang Cool Roof

Stucco Finish over High Performance Walls

High Performance Glazing

9



11/08/13 – R8


Perspective Views

Southeast View

10



11/08/13 – R8


Northwest View

Perspective Views

11



11/08/13 – R8


Q & A

12

LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Los Angeles Southwest College School of Math and Science

Project Checklist 09.09.2016

17 8 1 Possible Points: 26Y ? N Y ? N

Y Prereq 1 1 1 Credit 4 1 to 2

1 Credit 1 1 1 1 Credit 5 1 to 2

5 Credit 2 5 1 Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1

1 Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 1 Credit 7 1

6 Credit 4.1 6

1 Credit 4.2 1 8 7 Possible Points: 153 Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation—Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 3

2 Credit 4.4 2 Y Prereq 1

1 Credit 5.1 Site Development—Protect or Restore Habitat 1 Y Prereq 2

1 Credit 5.2 Site Development—Maximize Open Space 1 1 Credit 1 1

1 Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design—Quantity Control 1 1 Credit 2 1

1 Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design—Quality Control 1 1 Credit 3.1 1

1 Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect—Non-roof 1 1 Credit 3.2 1

1 Credit 7.2 1 1 Credit 4.1 1

1 Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 1 Credit 4.2 1

1 Credit 4.3 1

4 6 Possible Points: 10 1 Credit 4.4 1

1 Credit 5 1

Y Prereq 1 1 Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems—Lighting 1

2 2 Credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping 2 to 4 1 Credit 6.2 1

2 Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2 1 Credit 7.1 1

2 2 Credit 3 2 to 4 1 Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort—Verification 1

1 Credit 8.1 1

11 4 20 Possible Points: 35 1 Credit 8.2 1

Y Prereq 1 2 4 Possible Points: 6Y Prereq 2

Y Prereq 3 1 Credit 1.1 1

5 1 13 Credit 1 1 to 19 1 Credit 1.2 1

7 Credit 2 1 to 7 1 Credit 1.3 1

2 Credit 3 2 1 Credit 1.4 1

2 Credit 4 2 1 Credit 1.5 1

3 Credit 5 3 1 Credit 2 1

2 Credit 6 2

2 2 Possible Points: 44 4 6 Possible Points: 14

1 Credit 1.1 1

Y Prereq 1 1 Credit 1.2 1

3 Credit 1.1 1 to 3 1 Credit 1.3 1

1 Credit 1.2 Building Reuse—Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements 1 1 Credit 1.4 1

2 Credit 2 1 to 2

2 Credit 3 1 to 2 48 35 27 Possible Points: 110Certified 40 to 49 points Silver 50 to 59 points Gold 60 to 79 points Platinum 80 to 110

Construction IAQ Management Plan—During Construction

Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring

Indoor Environmental Quality

Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control

Increased Ventilation

Regional Priority Credits

Innovation and Design Process

Green Power

Water Use Reduction

Minimum Energy Performance

Fundamental Refrigerant Management

Daylight and Views—Views

LEED Accredited Professional

Daylight and Views—Daylight

Low-Emitting Materials—Adhesives and Sealants

Low-Emitting Materials—Paints and Coatings

Optimize Energy Performance

Energy and Atmosphere

Water Use Reduction—20% Reduction

Low-Emitting Materials—Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products

Low-Emitting Materials—Flooring Systems

Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control

Thermal Comfort—Design

Controllability of Systems—Thermal Comfort

Sustainable Sites

Alternative Transportation—Public Transportation Access

Site Selection

Development Density and Community Connectivity

Construction Activity Pollution Prevention

Construction IAQ Management Plan—Before Occupancy

Materials and Resources, Continued

Water Efficiency

Building Reuse—Maintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof

Alternative Transportation—Parking Capacity

Heat Island Effect—Roof

Recycled Content

Regional Materials

Certified Wood

Alternative Transportation—Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms

Materials Reuse

Storage and Collection of Recyclables

Materials and Resources

Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems

TotalConstruction Waste Management

Enhanced Commissioning

On-Site Renewable Energy

Enhanced Refrigerant Management

Regional Priority: Specific Credit




Measurement and Verification

Innovation in Design: Specific Title





Form DES-0015-A Page 1 of 2 Rev.06.29.15

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF FACILITIES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PROGRAM

FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (FMP&OC) MEETING LEED PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

College Name: Los Angeles Southwest College LACCD Project Name: School of Math and Science LACCD Project Number: 06S-36S.5618.03.01 College Project Director: Mark Al-Soufi Design Build Team: Harper Construction / Sillman Wright Architects

Project Description: The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) campus at Los Angeles Southwest College proposes to design and construct a new School of Math and Science (SoMS) building at the site located between the existing Cox Building and Fitness Wellness Center. The project site was previously occupied by the former Lecture Lab Building (recently known as the School of Math & Sciences Building), which has been demolished. The proposed building will be a two-story tall steel frame structure located at the east end of the site, and designed to be compatible with existing campus architecture and fit within the proposed Campus Design Guidelines.

The new Two Story Math and Science building has been organized for structural and functional efficiency, featuring an external corridor on the first level and internal double loaded corridor at the second level with sculptural exterior stairs at the east and west ends. An elevator at the west end provides equal access. The one story Office Suite features an internal double loaded corridor.

The program for the School of Math and Science includes classrooms, laboratories, stockrooms, storage, a shared lecture hall, and administrative spaces for faculty in support of Life Sciences, Chemistry, Physics, and Earth Sciences. LACCD and Building User Group have approved the resulting building plan and design.

Building Construction Use: Educational/Classrooms Occupancy: B Building Type: V-B Number of Stories: 2 Fully Sprinklered First Level Area = 14,461 SF Second Level Area = 12,329 SF TOTAL= 26,790 SF

Form DES-0015-A Page 2 of 2 Rev.06.29.15

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF FACILITIES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PROGRAM

Relevant Statistics:

The design-build project has a construction cost of $15.5 to 16 Million.

Schedule: Expected Design Phase Completion: September 2017 Expected Construction Phase Completion: December 2018 Expected Close-Out Phase Completion: January 2019 Sustainable Features: The project is expected to achieve a minimum of 42 LEED™ points for a LEED™ certified rating. Some of the sustainable features include: A. Landscape 1. Storm Water Management System 2. Low Water Irrigation use 50% Water Savings 3. Drought Tolerant Landscape B. Water Use Reduction 1. Water Use Reduction (by 20% - 25%) C. Recycling Strategies 1. Dedicated Recycling Stations 2. Recycled Materials 3. Construction Waste Management D. Interior Environments 1. Low VOC Interior Materials 2. Low Maintanace & Durable Materials 3. Walk Off Mats at Major Entries E. Energy Efficient Strategies 1. 20% - 24% Energy Savings 2. High Efficiency Mechanical Systems 3. Occupancy Sensors for Lighting 4. High Efficiency Led Light Fixtures 5. Daylight Sensors for Lighting 6. "Cool" Roofing System 7. High Performance Glass (Dual Pane Low-E Glazing) 8. Energy Star Rated Appliances

IMPERIAL HIGHWAY

WE

ST

ER

NA

VE

NU

E

gustavo.ibarra

Rectangle

gustavo.ibarra

Callout

New building propose location

gustavo.ibarra

Polygon

gustavo.ibarra

Polygon



Program Management Office Semi-Annual Report

Facilities Master Planning & Oversight Committee September 21, 2016


Build-LACCD Financial Summary

A-1 A-2 B C D E F=B-E

Variance Explanation(s)

Funding Dec 2015

Funding Mar 2016

Current Funding Jun 2016

Contracted Jun 2016

Expended Jun 2016

EAC Jun 2016

Variance Funding - EAC

Colleges $4.75 B $4.75 B $4.75 B $4.26 B $3.97 B $4.75 B $ - N/A

Satellites $330.37 M $330.37 M $330.03 M $216.79 M $210.29 M $335.91 M $(5.89) M Funding adjustment pending District resolution.

Central Services $541.02 M $542.95 M $542.95 M $445.22 M $392.80 M $542.93 M $19 K

EAC adjustment not captured by Dashboard data run due to timing issue. Resolved to show zero variance.

Districtwide Initiatives $374.65 M $378.73 M $378.73 M $208.67 M $163.22 M $378.73 M $ - N/A

Retire District Debt & Refinance

$117.16 M $117.16 M $117.16 M $109.64 M $109.64 M $117.16 M $ - N/A

District Bond Contingency $14.64 M $12.72 M $13.07 M $ - $ - $1.53 M $11.54 M N/A

Program Reserve $133.17 M $130.87 M $130.87 M $ - $ - $ - $130.87 M N/A

TOTAL $6.26 B $6.26 B $6.26 B $5.24 B $4.85 B $ 6.13 B $136.54 M

Source: June 2016 Dashboard Report

As of June 2016


College-Level Financial Summary

A-1 A-2 B C D E F=B-E

Variance Explanation(s)

Funding Dec 2015

Funding Mar 2016

Current Funding Jun 2016

Contracted Jun 2016

Expended Jun 2016

EAC Jun 2016

Variance Funding - EAC

City $568.44 M $568.44 M $568.44 M $487.88 M $465.35 M $568.44 M $ - N/A

East $664.82 M $664.82 M $664.82 M $627.23 M $596.46 M $664.82 M $ - N/A

Harbor $449.24 M $449.24 M $450.74 M $440.09 M $388.28 M $450.74 M $ - N/A

Mission $445.51 M $445.51 M $445.51 M $420.50 M $408.32 M $445.51 M $ - N/A

Pierce $625.06 M $625.06 M $625.06 M $503.00 M $459.58 M $625.06 M $ - N/A

Southwest $405.39 M $405.39 M $405.47 M $391.06 M $372.52 M $405.47 M $ - N/A

Trade $582.29 M $582.29 M $582.29 M $469.14 M $451.37 M $582.29 M $ - N/A

Valley $612.49 M $612.70 M $612.70 M $562.14 M $471.45 M $612.70 M $ - N/A

West $400.91 M $399.13 M $399.13 M $362.25 M $357.44 M $399.13 M $ - N/A

TOTAL $4.75 B $4.75 B $4.75 B $4.26 B $3.97 B $4.75 B $ -

Southgate* $192.40 M $192.40 M $192.40 M $74.60 M $68.64 M $ 192.40 M $ - N/A

Source: June 2016 Dashboard Report

As of June 2016

* Southgate is included within the Satellites category per the Dashboard report.


Cash Flow & Invoicing

0

50

100

150

200

250

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

No.

of I

nvoi

ces

Invoices Submitted

GC MATOC

January – June 2016

$17.2

$9.8

$23.9 $22.8

$20.3

$23.0

$15.0

$18.8

$22.5

$22.9

$26.4

$25.2

$7

$12

$17

$22

$27

$32

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Mill

ion

Cash Flow

0

10

20

30

40


No.

of D

ays

Invoice Process Time*

GC MATOC

Projected

Chart does not include 40J college projects such as ADA, Stormwater, Technology, Energy, etc.

* # of days between received date at the CPT/PMO and the date the check is cut


As of June 2016 Risk Program Update

Risk Register Development: February – April 2016 • Continued development of college and PMO risk registers • Risks were opened, reviewed, updated, and closed, as necessary Cost Workshops: May – June 2016 • Cost and schedule matrices developed • Workshops with college project teams and PMO department leads

conducted • Individual existing risk descriptions refined or closed • New risks identified; mitigation strategies discussed • Cost and schedule impact values assigned

Risk Model Execution: July 2016 - Current • Model results being ran (results based on an 80% confidence level).

Expected completion – August 2016

Next Steps: • Review risk model results with District – August 2016 • Review risk model results with college presidents– September 2016


College Projects Status Summary As of June 2016

34 36 36 34

29

31

22 22 22

16

11 11

30 32

36 37 41

46 49 49

44

49 53 53

34 34

33 32

33 31 35 34

31

20 19 19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


No.

of P

roje

cts

PlanningDesign/DSAConstruction

Projected


Work in Place & Remaining Funds

$38

$67

$3 $17 $20

$42

$7

$38

$54

$15

$126

$86

$124

$67

$46

$180

$36

$154 $166

$59

$0$20$40$60$80

$100$120$140$160$180$200

Mill

ion

Work in Place* Remaining Funds

* Value of work in place for projects from January through December 2016. ** Southgate is included within the Satellites category per the Dashboard report.

As of June 2016


$0$10$20$30$40$50$60$70$80$90


Mill

ion

New Contract Awards

Design Construction Other

Procurement Activity Summary

10

58 47

77

54

34

0

20

40

60

80

100


No.

of T

.O.s

Task Orders (T.O.) Issued

29

50 46 37

47 56

0102030405060

Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunN

o. o

f P.O

.s

Purchase Orders (P.O.) Issued

$1.3

$2.4 $2.7 $2.7

$4.6

$3.3

$-

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0


Mill

ion

Value of T.O.s and P.O.s Issued

January – June 2016

Projected


LSEDV Contract Award Breakdown

Contract Category Total Firms

LSEDV Firms

LSEDV Firms with

Task Orders

Non-LSEDV

Firms with Task

Orders Staff Augmentation 180 126 35 14

Architecture/Engineering 19 8 6 9

Environmental 12 6 6 6

Inspector of Record 18 13 7 4

Laboratory of Record 9 5 5 4

Whole Bldg. Commissioning 11 3 2 5

Professional Services 249 161 61 42

Construction Companies 51 20 N/A N/A

LSEDV : Local, Small, Emerging, Disabled Veteran-Owned

300 Total

Companies

181 LSEDV

Companies

60% Task Orders awarded to

LSEDV

As of June 2016


DSA Certification

25 projects closed with certification (CWC) Construction Value: $160M

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jan-16 Jun-16

No.

of P

roje

cts

Closed without Certification Trend

College Projects CWC Jan – Jun 2016

City 3

East 3

Harbor 4

Mission 0

Pierce 5

Southwest 1

Trade 4

Valley 2

West 3

TOTAL 25

Projects CWOC Jan 2016

Remaining CWOC Jun 2016

2 4

6 5

4 0

1 2

3 4

3 0

1 2

4 2

2 0

26 19

27% drop in total projects closed without certification (CWOC)

As of June 2016


NAICS: North American Industry Classification System

TRIR: Total Recordable Incident

Rate

Safety Report

63,010 72,459 73,489

100,474 87,138 87,599

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000


Construction Labor Hours*

As of June 2016

0

2

1 1

0

2

0

1

2

3


Incidents

* hours for construction labor covered by OCIP

Jan – Jun 2016

6 Recordables 2015 NAICS Avg. 3.2

TRIR Goal: 3.2

TRIR Actual: 3.0


Local Worker Hire Performance As of June 2016

56%

41% 36%

28%

30%

22%

25%

50%

31%

34%

27%

35%

30% 33%

45%

30% 29%

58%

36%

37%

34%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,000

Hou

rs

Total WorkersLocal Workers

Local Workers

35.08%

1186 local workers of 3381 workers total*

Local Worker Hours

40.43%

173,879 local worker hours of 430,055

hours total* * Cumulative since Oct ‘14


Monthly Key Performance Indicators

• New criteria established and implemented for the Change Order KPI effective April 2016

• New KPI under development: Invoice Timing – ‘B2GNow Bookends’ • KPI Comparison Report (January 2016 vs. June 2016):

As of June 2016

New Criteria Criteria in Dev.


QA/QC Achievements

Assessment Focus Assessment Criteria SOP Access/Quality CPT able to access/navigate through internal Standard

Operating Procedures site, forms on BuildLACCD public website, and centrally filed CPT staff meeting materials

Document Control/Closeout College projects follow Master File Index in hard/soft copy files; knowledge of closeout process; proficiency with ProjectWise

Risk Register Access CPT able to access/utilize functionality in risk register; planned mitigation strategies “due by” dates are updated

DSA CPT able to provide design/DSA related documentation and access respective DSA box(es)

Safety CPT able to provide safety plans for college projects and acknowledgement of acceptance of safety plans

CPT Quality Assessment Results

Compliant Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory Compliance Pending Upcoming Audit


Thank You



Procurement Status Update

Facilities Master Planning and Oversight Committee September 2016


Procurement Summary: January to August 2016

10

58 47 77

54 34

80 37

0

50

100

No.

of T

.O.s

Task Orders Issued

29 50 46 37 47 56 51 47

0204060

No.

of P

.O.s

Purchase Orders Issued

$1.3 $2.4 $2.7 $2.7

$4.6 $3.3

$5.4

$2.8

$-

$2.0

$4.0

$6.0

Mill

ions

Value of TO’s & PO’s Issued

Task Orders & Purchase Orders Procured, January – August 2016: Issued 397 Professional Services

Task Orders Issued 363 FF&E Purchase Orders Total Goods and Services Procured:

$25.1 M

Current Procurement Activity: 6 projects totaling $159.4M Professional Services totaling $2.4M Ongoing Prequalified Service

Provider (LSEDV) Task Orders Zero Protests received in 2016


Contract Awards: Past 6 Months, Next 3 Months

0102030405060708090

Mar

-16

Apr

-16

May

-16

Jun-

16

Jul-1

6

Aug

-16

Sep

-16

Oct

-16

Nov

-16

Dec

-16

Awar

ds ($

M)

Design Construction Other

Projected

Contracts are bidding for award in Q3/Q4 2016

Prequalified Service Providers (LSEDV)

$25M Awarded

UPCOMING AWARDS: $159.4M October 2016 – $72.9M Trade Culinary Arts, $51.8M West Technology Learning

Center, $17.1M West Energy Efficiency

Project, $2.5M OCIP Ombudsman, $360k VDK Roof Repair, $1.15M November 2016 – $81.0M ELAC Southgate, $81.0M December 2016 – $5.5M Civil Engineer Bench, $2.0M Valley Campus Center, $3.5M


Prequalified Service Providers LSEDV Awards $25 M authorized for Prequalified Bench (LSEDV). $22 M remaining. 13 Projects awarded to Prequalified Bench LSEDV contractors since award of bench contracts in April, totaling $2.9M.

College Project Name Amount ($ M) Status

West Performing Arts Amphitheater $0.54 Awarded

West Central Plant Phase 2 (Newly Awarded) $1.04 Awarded

West Physical Education Resource Center $0.35 Awarded

East Plant Facilities Building Fire Line $0.13 Awarded

East Concrete Pads $0.02 Awarded

Pierce Horticulture Demolition $0.29 Awarded

Pierce EEC Swale Fence Relocation $0.09 Awarded

Southwest Phase 1 and Phase 2 TAI $0.09 Awarded

Pierce PE Facilities General $0.20 Awarded

Harbor LLRC Additional Work $0.02 Awarded

City Pallet Racks $0.02 Awarded

City Temporary Facilities $0.12 Awarded

Mission Parking Lot D (40J) $0.06 Awarded

City Demo Men's Gym $0.90 To be Bid

Valley Storm Water Upgrade $1.60 To be Bid


APPENDIX




LSEDV Firms

LSEDV Firms with

Task Orders

Non-LSEDV Firms with

Task Orders

Staff Augmentation 180 126 35 14




Laboratory of Record 9 5 5 4 Whole Bldg. Commissioning 11 3 2 5


Construction Companies 51 20 3 (PQSP) N/A

LSEDV : Local, Small, Emerging, Disabled Veterans

300 Total

Companies

181 LSEDV

Companies


LSEDV Figures are not totaled under the “Total Companies” and “LSEDV Companies” to avoid double-counting.

June 2016




LSEDV Firms

LSEDV Firms with

Task Orders

Non-LSEDV Firms with

Task Orders

Staff Augmentation 180 126 35 14




Laboratory of Record 9 5 5 4 Whole Bldg. Commissioning 11 3 2 5


Construction Companies 51 20 N/A N/A Pre-Qualified Service Providers (PQSP) 48 45 13 0

LSEDV : Local, Small, Emerging, Disabled Veterans

378 Total

Companies

250 LSEDV

Companies


LSEDV

Figures are not totaled under the “Total Companies” and “LSEDV Companies” to avoid double-counting.

August 2016

Building for Tomorrow’s Leaders

LACCD Program Management 1055 Corporate Center Drive Monterey Park, California 91754 www.buildlaccd.org 323.981.7200 tel

MEMORANDUM

DATE: September 14, 2016

TO: James D. O’Reilly, Chief Facilities Executive

FROM: Sunil Shah, IT Project Director

SUBJECT: 40J Technology Update

Summary

This Memorandum provides additional background information regarding the upcoming presentation to the Facilities Master Planning and Oversight Committee (FMP&OC) on September 21, 2016 titled “40J Technology Update and District-wide Information Technology Assessment Findings.”

The IT Next Steps Action Plan, which was adopted by the Board of Trustees on May 21, 2015 (Com. No. FPD3) has been followed and completion of the final requirement is underway. Implementation of a District-wide IT Strategic Execution Plan will follow.

I. Timeline

December 17, 2014

Presentation made to FMP&OC regarding Program Management Office (PMO) analysis of the 40J IT Account, Bond counsel determination of limits of eligibility for IT to be Bond funded, and confirmation of cessation of spending on matters not eligible.

April 29, 2015

Presentation made to FMP&OC regarding the Districtwide IT Account including information regarding: account background, current financial status, portfolio summary, Projects Not Moving Forward, Non-Advisable Projects, and the following Next Steps Action Plan:

1. The Program Management Office ("PMO") will manage the District-wide IT program with the same rigor as the remainder of the building program;

2. The PMO will transfer any Non-Advisable Projects and contracts to the District;

3. The PMO will continue discussions with the District's IT stakeholders to develop a Strategic Execution Plan ("SEP") to meet the current needs of the District;

4. The PMO will align the SEP with findings and recommendations from prior independent reviews and Bond counsel; and

5. The PMO will reallocate funds within the District-wide IT program to address the needs of the SEP.

Building for Tomorrow’s Leaders

The Next Steps Action Plan was advanced to the Board of Trustees for consideration.

May 21, 2015

The Board of Trustees adopted the Next Steps Action Plan (Com. No. FPD3).

September 30, 2015

A presenation was made to FMP&OC that included proposed college-specific IT priorities previously considered by the Technology Policy & Planning Committee (TPPC) and college stakeholders. As a result, FMP&OC noted the establishment of priorities should be a more inclusive process and should lead to a more uniform and Districtwide IT Strategic Execution Plan.

November 18, 2015

The Joint Task Force for Information Technology was established including representation from the TPPC, the District Administrative Council, and the District Technology Council. District and PMO staff served as resources to the Joint Task Force. Administration from all colleges and satellites participated including Vice Presidents of Administrative Services, IT Managers and Staff, and Facilities Managers. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department – Community College Bureau also participated as a key stakeholder. A recommendation was made to perform a Districtwide IT Assessment by a third party in three categories: 1) Baseline Infrastructure; 2) Safety and Emergency Response; and 3) Instructional Systems.

February 15, 2016

Task Order No. 50364 was issued by the PMO to TK Design/Burwood Group/Paxbello for the Districtwide IT Assessment. A Joint Task Force kickoff meeting was held along with kickoff meetings at nine colleg locations.

September 8, 2016

The Districtwide IT Assessment is completed and the Joint Task Force approves moving forward with a Strategic Execution Plan (SEP) aligned with recommendations by the third party consultant.

II. Progress Report on Next Steps

The PMO has followed the Next Steps Action Plan and completed Items 1 through 4. Item 5 is underway.

III. Conclusion

The PMO has engaged with the Joint Task Force, College Administrators, and a third party consultant to develop a uniform Districtwide Technology Strategic Execution Plan with implementation funding currently available.

Page 2 of 2



Facilities Master Planning & Oversight Committee

District-wide Information Technology

Assessment Findings and 40J Technology Update

September 21, 2016


Agenda

• Introductions • Assessment Goals • Stakeholders • Assessment Categories • Assessment Findings and Recommendations • Proposed 40J Technology Strategic Execution Plan • Next Steps


Assessment Goal & History

Nov 2015

April 2015 November 2015 September 2016

College specific priorities presented to FM&POC and direction was issued to establish

a more inclusive process

Districtwide IT account status presented to

FMP&OC

Assessment findings,

recommendations, and SEP presented

to FMP&OC

GOAL: To develop a Measure J Bond eligible District-wide

solution that brings baseline uniformity to the Colleges

September 2015

Joint Task Force established and

recommendation is made to perform a

Districtwide IT Assessment by a

third party


Stakeholders

Technology Policy and Planning Committee District Administrative Council District Technology Council Build-LACCD

Joint Task Force (JTF)

VPs of Administration IT Managers and Staff Facilities Managers LA County Sheriff's Department – CC Bureau

College Stakeholders

Consulting Team Burwood Group TK Design Paxbello


Assessment Categories

3) Instructional Systems

2) Safety and Emergency Response Systems

1) Baseline Infrastructure


Assessment Findings and Recommendations


Baseline Infrastructure

Sub Category Key Findings Primary Recommendations Backup and Recovery

• Onsite backup is insufficient for college needs.

• Offsite backup systems are limited across the district.

• Implement capabilities to restore education critical systems in event of disaster.

Cybersecurity • End of life and end of support hardware is in use.

• Replace end of life critical cybersecurity hardware.

Telephone and Mass Notification

• E911 functionality unavailable in older phone systems.

• Insufficient public address coverage and integration.

• Implement a digital voice system with E911 automatic location identification.

• Implement standard public address capability.


Safety and Emergency Response Sub Category Key Findings Primary Recommendations Emergency Phones

• Lack of emergency phones in classrooms.

• Limited strategy for outdoor emergency phone deployment.

• Implement emergency phones in all classrooms.

• Develop a master plan for emergency phone deployment at each college.

Access Control (Card Readers)

• Inconsistent deployment of access control.

• Physical keys being used. • Enterprise access control

system deployed but not adopted.

• Implement standardized access control system.

Video Surveillance

• Ineffective and inefficient CCTV camera technology.

• Ineffective camera placement.

• Insufficient long term video archiving capability.

• Implement strategic guidelines to install new cameras to improve monitoring angles.

• Increase video archive capability.


Instructional Systems

Sub Category Key Findings Primary Recommendations

Onsite Instructional Systems

• Inconsistent deployment of audio visual (A/V) systems across the district.

• High number of analog systems in use.

• No centralized system management capabilities.

• Develop district wide A/V deployment standards.

• Convert all analog systems to digital.

• Implement centralized management system.

Distance Education

• Inadequate deployment of lecture capture and virtual lab capability for distance learning.

• Implement a standard distance education toolset for real-time distance learning.


Rating Scale

0 • None • Not

Deployed.

1 • High risk to

delivery of education.

• Does not meet technology standards.

2 • Potential for

high risk to delivery of education.

• Meets limited standards.

3 • Medium risk

to delivery of education.

• Meets standard baseline deployment.

4 • Low risk to

delivery of education.

• Standard baseline deployment and industry best practices.

• Minimal risk to delivery of education.

• Exceeds standards baseline deployment and industry best practices.

5


Assessment Ratings – Current State

0 1 2 3 4 5 Low Score High Score

Assessment Category LACC ELAC LAHC LAMC LAPC LASC LATTC LAVC VDK WLAC ESC

Base

line

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Networking 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3

Wi-Fi 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2

Voice 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

Servers 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

Storage 2 3 2 3 2 4 3 2 3 2 2

Backup 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Safety and Emergency Response 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4

Instructional Systems 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 0 Non Bond Eligible Assessment Items

Base

line

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Virtual Desktops 0 2 3 3 3 0 2 2 0 0 3 Accounts and Email 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2


Projected Post-Implementation Score

0 1 2 3 4 5 Low Score High Score

Assessment Category LACC ELAC LAHC LAMC LAPC LASC LATTC LAVC VDK WLAC ESC

Base

line

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Networking 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Wi-Fi 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Voice 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Servers 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Storage 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Backup 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Safety and Emergency Response 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4

Instructional Systems 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 Non Bond Eligible Assessment Items

Base

line

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Virtual Desktops 0 2 3 3 3 0 2 2 0 0 3 Accounts and Email 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2


40J Technology Strategic Execution Plan Baseline Infrastructure Backup, Disaster Recovery, Business Continuity Hardware and Software Firewall and Cybersecurity Deployment Network Cabinet and Cabling Enhancement Core Network Deployment Data Storage Capacity Enhancement Wi-Fi Controller and Access Point Deployment VoIP Phone System Upgrade Leased Bandwidth

Safety & Emergency Response Mass Notification Deployment Access Control Deployment CCTV Deployment and Surveillance Monitoring SAP Security and Mobility Enhancements Emergency Phone Deployment

Instructional Systems Digital Classroom Deployment Distance Education Toolset Standard Resource Management System Deployment


Next Steps

Begin Project Planning Perform Project Implementation


Appendix

Building for tomorrow’s leaders 16 16

Vs.

Exposed network cables in a classroom pose security and connectivity risks

Enclosed and lockable cabinet mounted high on wall

Network Cabinets


Vs.

Improper cable management poses risk to timely network administration

Proper cable management improves airflow, and enhances network administration capability.

Network Closets


Facial Recognition Vs Situational Awareness

CCTV Technology Capability


Instructional Systems Analog vs Digital

Vs.


40J Technology Reallocation

*Indicates a project in which funds were transferred into the 40J from a pre-existing college bond project.

Initiative Current Budget Spent Budget Remaining Reallocation

Technology Coordinators $8,026,926 $8,026,654 $272 $272

Student Information System (SIS) $46,068,040 $24,446,337 $21,621,703 $21,621,703

Connect LACCD Network $27,452,547 $58,887 $27,393,660 $27,393,660

One card System (Physical Security) and Monitoring $6,000,000 $4,915,709 $1,084,291 $0

Facility Management (CMMS) and Building Management interface $6,009,377 $6,009,377 $0 $0

Standards, Process Mapping and Program Strategy/ Management $8,731,964 $6,047,725 $2,684,240 $2,684,240

Servers & Support Equipment $18,117,151 $6,293,945 $11,823,206 $11,823,206

Distance Education Collaboration $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 Media Lab Enhancement $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 Project Support $367,649 $338,178 $29,471 $29,471

ProjectWise $2,068,837 $2,012,899 $55,937 $0

IT Program Management $3,853,522 $2,905,742 $947,780 $947,780

Physical Security and Hardware* $7,208,299 $560,142 $6,648,157 $0

TOTAL $133,924,312 $61,615,596 $72,308,717 $64,520,331

los angeles community college district program …

Documents