Winter 2001/2002
Real Property Policysite Newsletter
News and Views on Real Property
and Workplace Policy
Index
New Directions
·
Managers Face Challenges in Discovery Forum
·
Smart Growth Issues for the Federal Government
·
Security Is #1 Issue for Federal Real Property
Council
·
GRPIS Efforts Expand in 2002
Outreach
·
Federal Real Property Association Focuses on
Professional Development
Telework
·
Technology for Home-Based Telework Study
·
What are the Practices Recommended for Telework
Success?
·
GSA Revamping Electronic Inventory Systems
·
E-RealEstate Project Examines Internet Use
Real Property Regulations
·
Real Property Inventory Regulation Published
·
FMR Parts 102-71 to 83 Update
·
New General Reference Guide for Real Property
Policy will soon be available!
Integrated Workplace
·
Cubicles Be Gone!
Performance Measurement
·
The Facilities Condition Index: A Useful Tool for Capital Asset Planning
THIS IS … the nineteenth issue of Real Property POLICYSITE, a quarterly publication of the
Office of Real Property (MP), Office of Governmentwide Policy, U.S. General
Services Administration, Washington, DC, which is led by Deputy Associate
Administrator, David L. Bibb. Our
newsletter shares the latest information on public and private sector real
estate and workplace initiatives, trends, and best practices. We encourage your input. Contact us to let us know what you think, to
contribute articles, or to be placed on our mailing list, by contacting the
editor, Richard Ornburn, at richard.ornburn@gsa.gov, or (202) 501-2873.
NEW DIRECTIONS
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT
AND SECURITY
(Article provided
by Robert Materna, PhD, Vice President, The International Development Research
Corporation (IDRC) Foundation)
On November 6-7, the General Services
Administration (GSA) hosted a Discovery Forum on trends and challenges facing
senior leaders who are responsible for managing real property for both the
public and private sector.
According to Stanley Langfeld, Director, Real
Property Policy Division, of GSA's Office of Real Property “...this two-day
meeting provided an excellent forum for collaboration between public and
private real property professionals.”
Focus
of the Forum
The focus of the forum was on enhancing
productivity and minimizing risk through effective workplace and real estate
management. Highlights included
presentations by Robert Obenreder, Kevin Kampschroer, Paul Menk, and Paul
Chistolini, General Services Administration; and Terri Beattie and Tom Quinn,
Lockheed Martin Corporation.
Specific topics that were addressed during the
forum included:
·
Workplace security
·
Disaster response
·
Role of the workplace in enhancing
organizational performance
·
Surplus property disposal strategies and
programs
·
Most important challenges facing corporate real
estate today
The findings of this forum suggest that the
workplace can play a key role in improving performance in both the public and
private sector and that there are enormous challenges ahead for real estate
professionals following the events of September 11.
Almost all participants said that security is
now a top issue for their organizations and they are being asked to provide
solutions for a broad array of topics – from executive protection to emergency
response plans. Some of the specific
issues that were brought up in discussions included:
·
Building height
·
Strength of core structures
·
Controlled access, etc.
·
HVAC and location of ventilation systems
·
Use of land and landscaping
·
Parking location and access
Location Strategy
·
Away from high risk facilities or areas
·
Dispersed (to mitigate risk)
·
Planned redundancy (to facilitate continuity of
business operations)
·
Planned vacancy (to provide some level of
flexibility)
·
Single versus multi-tenant
·
Location and type of neighbors
·
Reexamination of impact of location on
attraction and retention of workers
·
Cost and availability of insurance for higher risk locations
·
Rethinking the implications of remote work and
the critical role of communications
·
Role of cell phones
·
Use of wireless technologies
All of the above will have a significant impact
on the cost to develop, operate, and dispose of property. To meet all of these needs, rents are going
to go up and tenants will end up paying more for the cost of security.
Many companies and government agencies are now
reviewing their plans to ensure that they have the ability to know where people
are, who is in the building, location of back-up facilities, availability of
back-up data and computer systems, and other information.
Keith Hughes, Security Manager and Advisor at
the Social Security Administration agreed, “We are going to see a steady
increase in security standards over the next several years – but there is going
to be a cost. Corporations and
government agencies are going to have to make some difficult decisions about
this in the very near future.”
Participants at the forum included 30 real
estate leaders from GSA, Department of the Army, Department of the Treasury,
Social Security Administration, Department of State, Department of Veterans
Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency and numerous corporations and service
providers including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Verizon,
Sprint, Equity Office Properties, Booz Allen Hamilton and others.
Discovery Forums are managed by The IDRC
Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the art and
science of managing real property and the workplace.
SIDEBAR
How Does Your Workplace Support the Occupants and the
Organization?
(article
submitted by Rob Obenreder, GSA Office of Real Property)
Workplace performance – how your workplace
supports the occupants and the organization – was the topic of a presentation
given by GSA at the IDRC Discovery Forum.
Kevin Kampschroer of GSA's Public Buildings Service, and Rob Obenreder
of GSA's Office of Real Property discussed using an integrated approach to
planning, programming, design, construction, and operations that can yield
significant benefits to an organization.
Using your workspace to strategic corporate
advantage for the organization involves consideration of:
·
New Technology:
Using an integrated design process to determine the most suitable
building systems and communications technology to support user and
organizational needs, and planning for change to accommodate future needs.
·
Integration of Design and Work: Translating organizational strategic goals,
work strategies, and work processes into physical space needs and operational
protocols.
·
Flexibility:
Developing building and office space infrastructure that can be easily
reconfigured to reduce downtime, waste, and churn costs, thus improving
facilities management and employee productivity.
·
Bundling of services: Offering customers a comprehensive suite of real estate planning
services, including new services such as strategic planning, business process
analysis, and change management.
·
Productivity:
Providing healthy work environments that help people maximize their
potential. Look at ways to measure
productivity and track the effects of the workplace on user performance, using
such things as absenteeism, churn time, and user surveys.
·
Blending Real Estate and Corporate
Strategies: Making real estate an
integral
part of the corporate
decision-making process. The type of
space you own and manage should be linked directly to organizational
goals. To do this, real estate must
have a seat at the organization’s strategic planning table.
High performance workplaces
are effective workplaces. They are the
result of a comprehensive, integrated approach to facilities that examines the
needs of the organization and involves all stakeholders at the appropriate
times throughout the life-cycle of the facility.
High
performance workplaces are effective workplaces!
(article provided by Andrea Wohlfeld Kuhn,
AICP, GSA Office of Real Property)
How have the events of September 11th
affected city planning, particularly the American Planning Association’s Smart
Growth movement?
On November 14, planners, professors, and
federal, Congressional, and non-profit organization representatives gathered in
Washington, DC to discuss smart growth issues in light of the events of
September 11. Opening remarks were
provided by Sam Casella, FAICP, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)
president, who stated that the American Planning Association (APA) position is
to continue with smart growth concepts, to strengthen cities, achieve equity in
areas such as housing, education, and employment, and to work from a regional
rather than a parochial perspective to build even stronger cities.
In his keynote address, Andrew Altman,
Washington, DC, Director of Planning, offered a look back in history, as a
means for the city to gain power and resolve from an historical array of
events, including previous destruction of the city by fire and war. Long a symbol of U.S. cities, Washington
responded then and is responding to today’s security challenges with
resiliency, and embracing smart growth principles of growth, vitality, and
environmental stewardship. Altman
called upon attendees to embrace the following:
Altman stated that the above concepts must
continue after September 11, and that Washington should continue as a symbol
for all U.S. cities.
Four panel discussions were held:
1. A Scholar’s View
Professors from various universities and the
Urban Land Institute provided their viewpoints:
·
Smart growth and security are compatible
concepts
·
Alternative forms of energy, including
transportation, are compatible with smart growth
·
Security should not become a driving factor in
the design of cities
·
The role of planners is to create livable
cities, and to prevent crime through design and zoning
·
We must renew our central cities; current
security issues can actually become the catalyst for renewal
·
Regional solutions must be developed
Newly formed on October 11, the
Coalition’s current members include the American Institute of Architects, APA,
American Society of Landscape Architects, and Scenic America. Founded on the premise of providing
necessary security while at the same time incorporating good design principles,
the Coalition’s two specific objectives are:
“Developing
and showcasing design principles that achieve an appropriate balance between
security measures that protect our people and built environment, and
continuation of an open society that cherishes its democratic principles,
freedom of movement, and accessible public places and facilities.”
“Developing
an inclusive decision-making process—consisting of experts in the fields of
landscape architecture, architecture, historic preservation, community
planning, the security industry, and government officials—for determining what
security will look like and how it will function.”
Coalition representatives provided examples of
aesthetic approaches to providing security, such as reinforced planters, site
selection, use of landscape features, and employing technology. The ultimate goal is to maintain public
accessibility and good design while providing adequate security.
3. Response from the Federal Government
Representatives from the General Services
Administration (GSA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and U.S.
Representative Earl Blumenauer’s staff discussed federal programs and resources
available.
·
GSA views the federal presence as an enduring
legacy, and remains fully committed to cities.
GSA has retrofitted buildings with security measures, to ensure that
they are both secure and open to the public.
GSA is building partnerships with city, local and federal entities for
security, historic preservation, and design purposes
·
FEMA focuses on two types of planning—advance
planning and planning after a disaster
·
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 establishes a
national program for pre-disaster mitigation and encourages state and local
pre-disaster planning (emphasizing the value of planning)
·
FEMA has a multitude of “how to” publications to
enhance hazard mitigation planning capabilities (http://www.fema.gov/)
·
Representative Blumenauer’s position in response
to the events of September 11th is to emphasize the importance of
planning, and to achieve the goal of livable cities through federal
partnerships with states and local communities. He has met with the National Capital Planning Commission on
design and security issues
·
A regional approach to planning and meeting
future disasters was emphasized
·
The panel members believe that there is
definitely a future for cities, in that people have a universal need to be with
other people
·
Ripple effects on the economy were discussed,
particularly in smaller towns and for smaller business owners
·
A request was made for long-term solutions
rather than quick fixes
·
A holistic approach is necessary, to incorporate
design and sustainability features with security measures
·
APA/AICP is working on agreements with other
countries to foster mutual learning
·
Planning matters!
For more information on AICP and the American
Planning Association, check out its website at www.planning.org.
SECURITY IS #1 ISSUE FOR FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY COUNCIL
(article
provided by Andrea Wohlfeld Kuhn, AICP, GSA Office of Real Property)
What
are the top issues facing Federal real estate executives? How have recent events impacted how Feds
manage agency real estate portfolios?
The Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) addressed these
issues in its September 25 meeting where it developed its agenda for the coming
year. Margie Lomax, Director, Evaluation
and Outreach Division, GSA Office of Real Property, welcomed FRPC members and
served as co-chair. Gary Arnold (Social
Security Administration), will serve as FRPC co-chair for one more year.
(sidebar) The FRPC was established April 1998 to provide a forum for
departments and agencies to review, evaluate, and make Governmentwide
recommendations about Federal real property policies or actions. The Council is comprised of executive-level
real property professionals from 31 Federal Departments and Agencies.
In response to a survey, FRPC members ranked
security as the number one issue to address in the next year. The advancement of real property when it is
not part of an agency’s mission was ranked as the second most important
issue. Third was the development of an
implementation plan once the Property Act Reform legislation is passed. Additionally, an off-site meeting will be held in Spring 2002 to provide an
opportunity for longer discussions, focused attention on pertinent issues, and
networking.
Since the FRPC meeting
was held only two weeks after September 11, discussion focused on agency
responses and issues that came to light, including:
·
Communications problems
·
Damage to the actual facility and the desire to
rebuild at the Pentagon
·
New York courthouses were without mail,
telephone, or computer service
·
Centralization/decentralization of information
·
The need for immediate alternative space
·
Evaluation of current
security policies
·
Need for evacuation/safety
procedures and plans
·
Need for new guidance and
procedures (example--bomb threats)
·
Need for standardized
system for employees' locations
·
Transportation/infrastructure
implications
·
Future
roles/responsibilities with the new Office of Homeland Security
Chair Gary Arnold reviewed the FRPC’s 2001 accomplishments, which included Property Act reform legislation, succession planning review, public-private partnership forum, a white paper on inadequate funding for capital needs, and the advancement of real property. The next FRPC meeting will be held in February 2002. For more information, contact Pat Rubino on (202) 501-1457.
GRPIS EFFORTS EXPAND IN 2002
(article provided by Sheldon Greenberg, GSA
Office of Real Property)
OGP’s Office of Real Property's Governmentwide
Real Property Information Sharing (GRPIS) Program will continue to support its
existing councils and will expand into new Federal communities during
FY2002. Below is the schedule for the
next council meetings which have been scheduled:
·
Puget Sound: The latest Puget Sound Real
Property Council meeting was
scheduled for Thursday, January 17, 2002, at a location to
be determined.
·
New Mexico:
The next New Mexico Property Council meeting will take
place on Tuesday, January 29 at the Corps of Engineers facility
located at 4101 Jefferson Plaza, Albuquerque.
The featured topic of discussion will be Facility Security - Post
9/11. Also the Council will be electing
a new Chair.
·
Front Range, Colorado: The presentation of
the Front Range Final GRPIS
Study and establishment of a local council is
tentatively scheduled for Thursday, January 31. A location is being finalized.
·
Other Forums and Councils: Meeting dates and
locations for the New
England, South Florida, Arizona, and Heartland
Forum/Councils are still being developed.
In addition, the GRPIS Team is reviewing Federal
agency space inventory data to determine which communities to study during this
year and seeks your input. Visit the
website at http://policyworks.gov/grpis, or contact Sheldon
Greenberg at sheldon.greenberg@gsa.gov or by phone on
202-501-0629 for more information.
OUTREACH
FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY
ASSOCIATION FOCUSES ON PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
(Article provided by Rebekah Pearson, GSA Office of Real Property)
The
challenge for FRPA is to capture and build upon the energy generated by the
(2001) conference, particularly the opportunities for networking and combining
resources..... (Tim Eller, GAO, FRPA
President)
The Federal Real Property
Association (FRPA) promotes professionalism, expertise, and interaction among
real property professionals. Each year,
it holds an annual Professional Development Conference for training and
outreach. It featured the GSA
Administrator Stephen Perry. Speaking
on GSA, he said,
"Creating a successful
future at GSA will require us to focus on our core mission, work as a team,
become more results-oriented and accountable. We must be dedicated to
excellence, high performance and continuous improvement.”
Breakout sessions included
a diverse series of subjects, including: Telework, Security in Federal
Buildings, and Public-Private Venture Housing
For more information, contact Rebekah
Pearson, 202-208-1850 or e-mail: rebekah.pearson@gsa.gov.
TELEWORK
(article
provided by Wendell Joice and Theresa Noll, GSA Office of Real Property)
What are the technology barriers to Federal
Home-based Telework programs?
Congress
wanted to find out and requested a study on technology barriers and solutions
to Federal home-based telework programs in recent legislation, H.R. 4871, House
Report 106-756. As a result, GSA's
Office of Real Property awarded a contract to Booz-Allen Hamilton in August
2001 to perform the study entitled:
“Technology Barriers and Solutions to Federal Home-Based Telework
Programs.”
This
study focuses on the technical aspects of telework, not human resources or
management issues. The study will
identify and analyze technology barriers and their impact on home-based
telework. It will describe technology
solutions available today that can be used to break down barriers.
Chief
Information Officers, Telework Coordinators, teleworkers and non-teleworkers from
various agencies will participate in the study. Functional categories include compatibility and architecture,
performance, end user support, communications, security, operations and
maintenance. The study is due out in February 2002. The findings of the study will be featured on a panel at FOSE
2002 in March.
Find
out more about this important study by contacting Theresa Noll at
Theresa.Noll@gsa.gov or Wendell Joice at Wendell.Joice@gsa.gov for further
information.
(article by Dr. Wendell Joice, GSA Office of Real Property)
Find out in the new report released by GSA's Office of Real
Property on recommended practices for
successful telework programs. The report, "Expert Consensus On Recommended
Practices For Telework Program Success," is available at the website:
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/pubs_content.jsp?contentOID=118958&contentType=1008
The goal of the study
was to provide much-needed substantiation of the effectiveness of existing
recommendations for practices needed to achieve successful telework
programs. Following are key points
from the study:
·
Telework program planners, implementers, and other experts should focus
on tailoring the selection and implementation of recommended practices to the
circumstances of the target organization(s).
·
Telework program planners should implement the practices deemed
essential and select the particular array of other “valuable” practices that
will lead to optimal performance for their specific organizational
circumstances. Optimizing practices may mean implementing similar, but not
necessarily the same, sets of practices for different units within the same
organization.
·
Of the 33 examined (recommended) practices, the following seven
practices were "essential" to the success of a telework program:
For more information,
contact Dr. Wendell Joice at Wendell.Joice@gsa.gov.
VIRTUAL
GOVERNMENT
GSA REVAMPING
ELECTRONIC INVENTORY SYSTEMS
(article provided by Carol
Anadale, GSA Office of Real Property)
Foundation Information
for Real Property Management (FIRM) Continues Migration: FIRM is an automated
real property asset management system, which is provided at no cost to federal
agencies. It helps Federal real
property officers manage their real property assets.
The main FY 2002 task
will be FIRMweb Support and continued support of FIRM 7 until a full
governmentwide migration to FIRM Web is accomplished. This support, including training on the new system, hotline
support on both systems, installation, continued correction of system “bugs” on
both systems, continued resolution of user problems on both systems until a
full, effective, and efficient migration to the new system is accomplished for
all users, is important to the FIRM users in keeping their systems
functioning.
Also planned is an Independent Verification and Validation
(IV&V), of the FIRM system; the current FIRM 7, developing webFIRM and the
conversion processes to FIRM Web. The
IV&V will provide a Draft and a Final report on problems discovered during
the review and provide recommended corrective action for any problems
identified by the review for the conversion process and both FIRM 7, and
webFIRM.
Worldwide Inventory (WWI) System Undergoes Retooling: The
Worldwide Inventory (WWI) is an electronic real property management system of
federal real estate that contains summary data (on installations, land,
buildings, and other structures) from all federal agencies.
The FY 2002 plan for WWI-IA by the Office of Real Property
develops a new application which is easier to use, will provide a better ad hoc
reporting tool, and study adding Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping
features. Work will provide an
electronic update capability, trend reports, and incorporate the best practices
identified from studies of state government real property applications as well
as private industry applications.
Re-tooling meetings were held in November and December and
future meetings are planned . Lessons
learned from the FY 2000 report production, discussion of asset management data
collection and a demonstration of the revised Worldwide Inventory Internet Application
were among the agenda items. Contact
Carol Anadale on (202) 208-2970 for more information on FIRM and WWI and
re-tooling meeting dates.
E-REALESTATE
PROJECT EXAMINES INTERNET USE
(article by Dennis Goldstein, GSA Office of Real
Property)
GSA's
Office of Real Property is continuing its examination of the uses of the
Internet in the management of real estate by the Federal government. OGP has established an Internet site for the
purposes of disseminating good practices and information about web-enabled
software to the Federal government.
This site can be accessed at:
www.gsa.gov/Portal/form.jsp?detail=longDesc&OID=118121
An important element
of this study is a short web-enabled survey that has been disseminated to
Federal agencies that have real estate holdings or responsibilities for the
management of real property. This
e-RealEstate Survey is providing useful feedback to the GSA Office of Real
Property for determining the level of present and planned uses of internet
applications in Federal Government real estate organizations. This survey should take 5 minutes or less to
complete.
As a reminder, the site for the survey
can be accessed at:
www.gsa.gov/Portal/form.jsp?detail=longDesc&OID=118121
All
individuals in Federal agencies with real estate responsibilities should be made
aware of this survey and are encouraged to participate. Each respondent is able to receive immediate
feedback summarizing the up-to-the minute results of the survey.
The
survey can be accessed only by entering a user name and associated password. Please contact Dennis Goldstein
(dennis.goldstein@gsa.gov) or John D. Thomas (johnd.thomas@gsa.gov) to obtain
the username and password for your agency.
If
you have any questions, please contact Dennis Goldstein at (202) 219-0608 or
John D. Thomas at (202) 501-0365.
REAL PROPERTY REGULATIONS
REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY REGULATION
PUBLISHED
(article submitted by John Thomas, GSA Office of
Real Property)
On
October 25, 2001, GSA Administrator Stephen A. Perry signed Federal Management
Regulation (FMR) Part 102-84, entitled "Annual Real Property
Inventories." The regulation was
published as an interim rule in the Federal Register on November 2, 2001. This culminates work begun in FY 1999 in
concert with the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, and the
Department of the Interior, when the Office of Real Property began conducting a
comprehensive review of the policies in the existing Federal Property
Management Regulation (FPMR) Part 101-3, also entitled "Annual Real
Property Inventories."
In
addition to rewriting the regulation in plain language, the review focused on
improvements to make the real property inventory program more useful, and to
enable Federal agencies to manage their real property inventories more
effectively. Most significant of the
improvements involve eliminating the use of paper forms in order for all
agencies’ to submit real property inventory data electronically and ensuring
that the regulation is consistent with current Government accounting standards. Contact: John D. Thomas on (202) 501-0365
for more information.
FMR PARTS 102-71 TO 83 UPDATE
As part of GSA’s regulatory improvement initiative,
Final Rule FMR Parts 102-71 to 102-82 was published in the Federal Register on January
18, 2001, and became effective on January 18, 2001. FMR Parts 102-71 to 102-82 describe the current real property
policies applicable to GSA and Federal agencies to whom GSA real property
authority has been delegated.
The publication of this regulation in the Federal
Register initiated the start of a new initiative to amend FMR Parts 102-71 to
102-82 to reflect updated policies, such as location policy, outleasing policy,
historic preservation policy, and security policy. In addition, amending the FMR will complete the transfer of
policy from the FPMR to the FMR and create a separate part, FMR Part 102-83, to
deal specifically with the updated location of space policy. Ultimately, amending these FMR Parts will
provide agencies with updated regulatory material that is easy to read and
understand. GSA anticipates publishing
these FMR Amendments in Spring 2002.
Contact: John D. Thomas (202)
501-0365 for more information.
The Office of Real Property is updating the
General Reference Guide for Real Property Policy, originally published in April
1998, to reflect the addition of new laws, executive orders, and regulations
that impact real property management.
In the past, the guide has provided an easy-to-understand reference of legal authorities, by subject area, that
are applicable to GSA and Federal agencies to whom GSA real property management
and operations have been delegated.
Look for the latest information in the updated
version of the General Reference Guide for Real Property Policy in April
2002. Contact: Iona Calhoun on (202) 501-0821 for more
information.
INTEGRATED WORKPLACE
CUBICLES BE GONE!
Managing the Workplace of the Future
(Summarized with
permission from the Journal of Property Management, Sept. – Oct. 2001 Issue,
article by Nancy Pekala)
(article
submitted by C. Coneeney, GSA Office of Real Property)
Creating adaptable, sustainable, and flexible
workplaces is growing! These workplace
environments can have a positive impact on employee productivity.
The Office of the Future Consortium developed
the Future@Work exhibit in Seattle, WA.
The consortium is a non-profit group of almost 100 local, national, and
international businesses that are interested in incorporating these workplace
concepts. The Future@Work exhibit
divides the workplace into 3 sectors:
·
Meeting venues
·
Office venues
·
Non-territorial venues
This venue is noted by its use of flexible
furniture to promote interaction. As
opposed to a conference table and chair, this venue may have lounge furniture
to promote brainstorming and information sharing.
The office venue is broken into 3 hard wall
configurations, dorm, harbor, and study.
The dorm is associated with start up companies where the profits are
reinvested back into the business, not into assets. The dorm approach focuses on ergonomics, storage, and furniture
that supports intensely focused activities.
The harbor is applied for companies that are still in a growth mode, but
have a plan for the long term. This
concept emphasizes efficient use of space and the capability to satisfy
individual and group activities. The
study is focused on more mature companies in a stable, competitive business
environment. This approach is more
conservative and centers on workplace standards and facilitating
communications.
The employee can configure the non-territorial
venue to meet specific needs. Examples
in the Future@Work exhibit are the den, media lounge and the serenity
room. These areas can provide an escape
from the office, while still providing the technology to stay connected to the
business.
The
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance has created a web site,
www.betterbricks.com, to promulgate energy efficient concepts and provides some
data on the impact that better building design and energy efficiency can have
on productivity. Below are some figures
from www.betterbricks.com
·
Energy costs in office buildings average $2 per
square foot, while employee salary and benefits are $130 per square foot. Even small changes in productivity can have
a significant impact on the company’s bottom line.
·
The Heschong Mahone Group conducted a study in
1999 and showed that retail sales increased an average of 40 percent in stores
with skylighting, as opposed to stores in the same chain with electrical
illumination.
The article describes a quality workplace as one
that provides some amount of personal choice and control, few distractions, and
provides a sense of pleasure, enjoyment and prestige. The article also mentions that the real estate industry is moving
away from the idea of one solution for the workspace. The workplace and the office need to adapt to the specific people
using the space. Gary Evans, a Cornell
University psychologist wrote in the Journal of Applied Psychology, “In
designing workspaces, companies need to think carefully about the different
tasks and demands that will be carried out there. An environment built for people who work in teams won’t
necessarily work for people who need to concentrate.” Check out the article for more information on this important
issue.
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT
THE
FACILITIES CONDITION INDEX: A USEFUL TOOL FOR CAPITAL ASSET PLANNING
(summarized with permission from “Facilities Manager” July/August 2001
Issue, article by Don J. Briselden, P.E., and David A. Cain, Ph.D.)
(article provided by M. Saldanha, GSA Office of Real Property)
What is your "FCI?"
Imagine
this scenario. A new vice president for
finance and administration at a university has just returned from an annual NACUBO
(National Association of College and University Business Officers) conference
and relates that he heard people discussing methods of forecasting capital
asset funding. In those discussions
people were comparing their institutions' Facilities Condition Index (FCI) as a
useful measure of campus condition. The
VP then turns to you and asks, "What is our FCI and how do we
compare?" Of course, you are
knowledgeable about your facilities and ready to provide the information
requested. Or are you?
Let's respond to that question with a
conversational definition of FCI. The
technical definition is included later in this article. During a walking tour of any campus, a
person with an eye cast toward the condition of buildings can form a judgment
about their condition and can develop a sense of the existing maintenance
liability. If one sees the paint
pealing, indications of decayed surfaces, roofs that older than 20 years, you
do not need to be an expert to realize that a sizable reinvestment is needed. Often the outside condition reflects the
condition inside. Students, faculty,
administrators, staff, and all other stakeholders form opinions and make
judgments about the institution based on its appearance. These critical opinions fall into four
intuitive categories of poor, fair, good, and excellent.
The
FCI in practical terms has been a numerical rating system that translates what
you see on your educational institution tour into a rational measure of the
amount of deferred maintenance and provides a means of gauging the condition of
the facility. The FCI is a metric that
is used by numerous institutions as part of their capital planning process.
The
FCI is a useful assessment tool that should be in every facilities professional
arsenal of tools. It has been a feature
of capital renewal and deferred maintenance (CRDM) planning for the past decade
and is a generally accepted measure.
More recently, the FCI was included as one of the key metrics within
APPA's (the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers) Strategic
Assessment Model (SAM).
The
FCI concept resides within the development of studies and models for capital
renewal and deferred maintenance. For
the past 40 years, institutions of higher education have struggled with their
responsibilities for identifying their facilities needs and responsibilities to
fund the continuing renewal of systems and the correction of maintenance.
The
history of CRDM and the various funding models for capital renewal is
documented by Rod Rose in “Charting a New Course for Campus Renewal”. That APPA publication brings forward a
common vocabulary, defined processes, and helpful descriptions regarding
capital renewal funding models.
The process for CRDM planning consists of the
following steps:
·
Conduct
a comprehensive campus-wide facilities audit
·
Assess
the condition of each building
·
Determine
the Current Replacement Value (CRV) for each facility or by types of
facilities.
·
Determine
the Facilities Condition Index for each facility
·
Apply
the FCI within the institution's capital funding model.
The FCI is a comparative indicator of the
relative condition of facilities. It is
expressed as a ratio of the cost of remedying maintenance deficiencies listed
in the deferred maintenance backlog to the current replacement value; it also provides the facilities professional
a method of measurement to determine the relative condition index of a single
building, group of buildings, or the total facility.
This calculation also provides the facility
professional a corresponding rule of thumb for the annual reinvestment rate
(funding percentage) to prevent expansion of the deferred maintenance
backlog. The FCI can be defined in
terms of the following basic equation:
Deferred Maintenance* ($) divided by its Current
Replacement Value** ($)
*The total dollar amount of
existing major maintenance repairs and replacements identified by a
comprehensive facilities condition audit of buildings, grounds, fixed equipment,
and infrastructure needs. It does not include projected maintenance and
replacements or other types of work, such as program improvements or new
construction; these items are viewed as separate capital needs.
**The total amount of expenditure in
current dollars required to replace the institution's educational and general
facilities to its optimal condition (excluding auxiliary facilities).
The
process of capital budgeting presents a full and useful kit of parts for the
facilities professional. It is a
process that can be adapted to fit the local situation. The FCI can be applied
in a variety of ways. It is a key
component in the planning process, as a calculation that brings insight to the
campus facilities conditions, and as a comparative metric by which the
facilities manager can see where the campus stands within a broader
perspective.
The new and improved model has just been
published in a completely revised second edition of the APPA book, The
Strategic Assessment Model. The
application statistics about the use of the FCI will be available. We hope that the comparative measures will
be useful to a wide range of facilities professionals.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
(article
provided by Lance Davis, AIA, LEED Certified Designer)
An integrated approach to a better, smarter
sustainable design...
The power of your next project’s design may not only
be in the architecture, but in the written word of the specifications. A movement is being found across the nation
of a better, smarter design sometimes called green, sometimes sustainable, and
sometimes environmental. No matter what
you call it, an integrated approach to the design is required.
Many people in the design, construction, and
property management fields though, have been frustrated trying to integrate
executive orders and new standards, and changing the way it has always been
done. Many have seen their efforts
disappear as part of value engineering, uneducated contractors, bad
substitutions or a lack of proper information.
A tool to help alleviate these frustrations is our modern day pen, the computer. Through the use of specifications, the
efforts of the design team are solidified into holistic designs that prevent
the devaluing of the project. RTKL, an
international A/E firm, is developing in house tools to ensure that the design
team’s efforts are an integral part of the project. Three tools that are being included in the master specifications
are:
-
environmental performance standards for
materials,
-
the use of the US Green Building Council’s
(USGBC) LEED rating system by the contractor, and
-
the use of environmental ASTM standards.
Specification sections with three products
listed are a common practice, but as products are identified to have practical
environmental performance, they can replace the old standard list. The key is to just add the product and the performance
information and not to call special attention to the green element. By doing this, the language is standardized
and the requirements are accepted throughout the offices. This also does not raise a flag to the
contractor that something special is going on, thus potentially raising cost.
In Division 1, standard language can be
incorporated for contractors to work with the USGBC LEED rating system and
other environmental procedures. An
Environmental Project Procedures section sets up the relationship between
design intent and contract requirements.
Although in its early revisions, this section lays out the groundwork to
meet the LEED rating requirements, construction recycling, and air and water
quality on the job site.
ASTM standards can help choose the best products
and to insure substitutions meet the stated requirements. ASTM E2114-01Standard Terminology for
Sustainability Relative to the Performance of Buildings allows the
specification writer and the contractor to understand the basic definitions of
green building components. ASTM
E2129-01 Standard Practice for Data Collection for Sustainability Assessment of
Building Products is a standardized questionnaire for manufacturers. By requiring manufacturers to submit this
document, a side-by-side comparison of materials can determine the best
products to include in the Master spec.
To ensure that the design intent is maintained during construction, the
questionnaire is required of substitutions.
The benefit to this approach is that the firm’s
international business can utilize the best products and the best practices on
all jobs whether recognized as environmental by the client or not. Although early in their development, these
tools are helping the firm build a design practice that is beginning to
understand that better design is available.
While the specification writers for each job can choose to remove these
standards, they have to make the decision to do so and this can bring about an
educational process to take these tools even further.