More with Less: Five Strategies for Facilities

Success

Helen Bailey, AIA, LEED AP, CEFPUniversity North Texas

Kevan Will, Sightlines

Kent Pecora, Sightlines

Introducing Today’s Presenters

Kevan Will; Senior Account Manager, Sightlines

• 11+ years of tenure at Sightlines

• Has worked with over 100 campuses in 27 states

• Currently serving as the Sightlines Operational Lead for 20 members including: University of Arkansas, Cleveland State University & Michigan Technological University

• Graduated from Gettysburg College with a BA in Management

Helen Bailey; Director and Campus Architect

Facilities Planning, Design & Construction, University of North Texas

• 16+ years of tenure at University of North Texas

• Proudest Accomplishments @ UNT:

• Involved in renovations in almost every building on campus and much of the campus during her tenure

• Experienced the largest growth period in UNT’s history with student enrollment growth from 28,000 in 2001 to 38,000 today, including countless major renovations, new buildings, and acquisitioned structures during that time.

• .

Kent Pecora; Project Lead, Sightlines

• 3+ years of tenure at Sightlines

• Has worked with over 50 campuses in 13 states

• Currently serving as the Sightlines Operational Lead for 15 members including: University of North Texas

• Graduated from Dickinson College with a BS in Physics

Today’s Agenda

• Introduction to Sightlines/Gordian

• National & Regional Trends (Challenges) in Facilities in Higher Education

• UNT’s Approach: 5 Strategies for Success

• Deep Dive in to UNT’s Toolbox: Annual Sightlines Assessment, Classroom Utilization & Gordian Job Order Contracting

Introduction to Sightlines/Gordian

Sightlines is a Gordian CompanyLeading provider of facility and construction cost data, software and expertise for all phases of the building lifecycle.

Gordian was founded on innovation. Our industry experts continue to refine our data and software to address real challenges:

• Pioneer of localized construction cost information with RSMeans data

• Creator of the streamlined construction procurement method, Job Order Contracting

• Leader in defining facilities analysis and benchmarking with Sightlines

• University of North Texas is one of several higher education clients utilizing both Gordian Job Order Contracting solutions and Sightlines’ benchmarking and facilities assessments

Leading provider of facilities

intelligence in higher education

helping them to identify ways to use

capital more strategically and identify

opportunities to improve operational

effectiveness and providing them with

tools for strategic planning, analyzing

and benchmarking.

Sightlines by the NumbersRobust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums, and state systems

43States+DC

90%Memberretention

rate

360+ROPA

Members

450Colleges &

Universities

170New members

since 2013

5Canadianprovinces

Sightlines has advised state systems in:

• Alaska

• California

• Florida

• Hawaii

• Maine

• New Hampshire

• New Jersey

• Pennsylvania

• Texas

• Washington

• Massachusetts

• Minnesota

• Mississippi

• Missouri

• Nebraska

• Ohio

Integrated Campus Stewardship

Facilities intelligence that connects space, capital, and operating policies

Sightlines breaks through the organizational siloes and creates alignment from the “boardroom to the boiler room.”

National & Regional Trends (Challenges) in Facilities in Higher Education

2016 State of Facilities in Higher Education

• Space growing faster than enrollment – with research universities being the exception

• Construction vintage drives risk profile• Steady investment levels with greater reliance on

annual institutional capital• Facilities backlogs continue to rise

http://www.sightlines.com/insight/state-of-facilities-2016/

Challenges: Space Profile

Space Growing Faster Than Enrollment

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

Space and Enrollment TrendsNational Average

Space Enrollment

Space and Enrollment Growth – Public vs. Private

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

Space and Enrollment - Public

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015P

erc

en

t C

han

ge

Space and Enrollment - Private

Space and Enrollment Growth by Constituent Group

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

Comprehensive Institutions Research Institutions Small Institutions

Space and Enrollment Growth – MAPPA & CAPPA

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

Space and Enrollment - MAPPA

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

Space and Enrollment - CAPPA

Movement of Public University StudentsFrom the New York Times article “The Great Out-of-State Migration”

Texas – Campus Space and Enrollment Growth

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

of

Enro

llme

nt

& S

pac

e

Texas Space Growth Texas Enrollment Growth

An Accurate Prediction

“One side effect of this rapid growth has been the creation of anincreasingly large obligation for the future renewal and replacement ofthe physical plant.”

–Rick Biedenwig, 1980

Founder, Pacific Partners Consulting Group

Source: Before the Roof Caves In II: Published with assistance from APPA and Stanford University

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Sightlines Database- Construction Age

Built pre-1951

• Durable construction

• Older but lasts longer

Putting Your Campus Building Age in ContextCampus age drives overall risk profile

% o

f C

on

str

ucte

d S

pa

ce

Pre-War Built 1951 - 1975

• Lower quality

• Needs more repairs

& renovation

1975 - 1990

• Quick flash

construction

• Low quality

components

Built post-1991

• Technically complex

• Higher quality

• More expensive to maintain

or repair

Modern

Post War Complex

MAPPA & CAPPA Institutions: Different Profiles

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

% o

f G

SF

% of GSF by Construction & Renovation Year

Sightlines Database- Construction Age CAPPA MAPPA

Challenges: Capital

Capital Investment in Existing SpaceSteady investment levels with continued improvement in capital funding

$1.12 $1.19 $1.28 $1.21$1.60 $1.67 $1.71 $1.59 $1.73

$3.10

$3.83 $3.88$3.63 $3.09

$3.37 $3.35$2.99

$3.32

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

Capital Investment into Existing Space

Annual Capital One-Time Capital Average

Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise

$81.72 $83.42 $87.19 $88.52 $90.73 $93.27 $95.31 $97.56 $100.07

$0.0

$20.0

$40.0

$60.0

$80.0

$100.0

$120.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SFBacklog $/GSF

Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise

$81.00 $85.00 $88.00 $92.00 $96.00

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

MAPPA

$79.00 $80.00 $82.00 $83.00 $85.00

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

CAPPA

Challenges: Operations

Facilities Operating BudgetSmall increases in campus operating budgets from 2007-2015

$3.98$4.26 $4.33 $4.37 $4.41 $4.44 $4.54 $4.65 $4.74

$0.25

$0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.27 $0.29 $0.29$0.31 $0.33

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/G

SF

Facilities Operating Budget $/GSF

Daily Service Planned Maintenance Inflation

Modest Energy Reductions Since 2007

82,251 83,320 78,403 75,875 77,505 69,317 73,993 76,834 72,740

51,196 52,788 53,124

52,471 53,031

52,010 51,230

51,553 50,487

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

ange

BTU

/GSF

Energy Consumption

Fossil Electric Percent Change

UNT’s Approach: 5 Strategies for Success

UNT’s Approach:Five Strategies for Success

Look ahead

Build strategically

Less can be more

Keep-up

Reward savings

Look Ahead: Enrollment Growth Outpaces GSF Growth

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

% C

ha

nge

Sin

ce

FY

07

Percent Change Over Time

GSF Change Student FTE Change

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

GS

F/S

tud

en

t F

TE

Projected Program Space per Student

Space per Student Peer Average

Future Assumptions:

• 2.5% increase in Students/Year

• +130k GSF by 2020

Build Strategically: What Is Needed?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Room Utilization: Biology and Chemistry Labs MTWRF

Room Utilization

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

80

0

84

5

93

0

10

15

11

00

11

45

12

30

13

15

14

00

14

45

15

30

16

15

17

00

17

45

18

30

19

15

20

00

20

45

21

30

Seat Utilization: Biology and Chemistry Labs,

MTWRF

Seat Utilization

Biology and Chemistry Teaching Labs at UNT are highly utilized - 47 hours per week vs state standard of 25 hours per week

Biology and Chemistry Teaching Labs at UNT are highly utilized – average, 90% of seats in each classroom are filled while in use.

Less Can Be More: “Right Size” Classroom Inventory

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

80

0

91

5

10

30

11

45

13

00

14

15

15

30

16

45

0-27

80

0

90

0

10

00

11

00

12

00

13

00

14

00

15

00

16

00

17

00

28-408

00

90

0

10

00

11

00

12

00

13

00

14

00

15

00

16

00

17

00

41-60

80

0

90

0

10

00

11

00

12

00

13

00

14

00

15

00

16

00

17

00

61-90

80

0

90

0

10

00

11

00

12

00

13

00

14

00

15

00

16

00

17

00

91-160

80

0

90

0

10

00

11

00

12

00

13

00

14

00

15

00

16

00

17

00

161+

42% 63% 69% 74% 77% 85%

Smaller Capacity Larger Capacity

Room utilization increases with classroom capacity

Opportunity to “Right Size” classroom inventory to maximize utilization

Keep Up: What’s My Number?

$34.5

$13.5$9.9

$17.6

$6.0

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$40.0

3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target

$ in

Mil

lio

ns

FY16 Annual Investment Target

Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$/G

SF

Daily Service + Planned Maintenance Expenditures

Daily Service Planned Maintenance

Reward Savings: Make the Case

• Daily Service (Reactive) Expenditures have decreased.

• Planned Maintenance (Proactive/Life Cycle Extending) Expenditures have increased.

• Reallocate savings (shaded area) towards additional Stewardship and “Keep Up” spending.

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$/G

SF

Daily Service + Planned Maintenance Expenditures

Daily Service Planned MaintenanceSavings/Cost Avoidance

Deep Dive in to UNT’s Toolbox: Annual Sightlines Assessment, Classroom Utilization & Gordian Job Order Contracting

State of the University

• Founded in 1890 in Denton, Texas• 4th largest university in the state• Tier One Research University• 13 colleges• Nearly 38,000 students

UNT Facilities:• 165 Buildings including 15 Residence Halls • 7M+ GSF• 900+ acres• Facilities manpower: 325+

Introduction to UNT

$ Mils 31.6 31.8 33.8 33.5 27.5 27.5 94.7 94.7 87.3 87.5 92.9 95.5 98.1 105.4 104.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17

Closed

Engineering

Auxiliary

Campus Planning

UNT FPDC Project Management Workload Stats

How the Tools in Our Toolbox Help Our Resource Challenges

• Aging buildings

• Identified a need to focus our improvement efforts strategically

• Limited funding

• Need to prioritize most critical needs

• Expedited construction schedules

• Changing priorities, class schedules, and lack of swing space despite our best planning efforts very often requires quick delivery methods

UNT/Gordian Job Order Contracting (JOC) Program

Gordian started by writing a UNT specific Construction Task Catalogue (CTC) unit pricing book

• RFP issued in 2013

• Contract terms:• $900K max per job order• $5M limit cumulative per GC• 3 year term contract with 2 optional 12 month renewals

• 5% fee for Gordian oversight

• 5 general contractors

• 80+ individual projects

• $6.75M total cumulative

JOC Program

• Used for small-to-medium sized interior renovations & remodeling

• Maintenance repairs and minor new construction

• Short timelines

• Gordian JOC does not replace traditional bidding delivery methods for larger or non-expedited projects

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Do

lla

rs (

Mil

lio

ns

)

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Annual Investment Target

We are able to track

how our funding

compares to the

Annual Investment

Target and determine

when we have to

stretch our dollar to

address needs on

campus when our

funding does not reach

the target

Sightlines Annual Assessment

Through the Space

Utilization Analysis, we

were able to confirm our

assumptions about our

heavy utilization on

Tuesday and Thursday,

especially during “Prime

Time”, with an average

of over 80% of our

classrooms in use.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

8:00-9:20 9:30-10:50 11:00-12:20 12:30-1:50 2:00-3:20 3:30-4:50

Tuesday Thursday

Tuesday/ Thursday Classroom Room Utilization By Time Block

Prime Time

Sightlines Classroom Utilization Findings

JOC Program Benefits

• Fast Track delivery method• Pre-bid contract with known coefficients

• CTC• Well defined UNT campus-specific defined tasks & materials

• No room for line item “manipulation”

• Known and quantified pricing• Gordian representative review of proposal scope and line

items

• Solid owner/contractor relationship• Contractor familiarity with our campus and approach

• responsive

Future Planning & Continued Development

• Sightlines assessment allows us to strategize maintenance priorities

• Classroom utilization study informs approach to improving and increasing classroom capacity

• JOC program allows us to react quickly with skilled contractors to meet the needs of the university.

Questions

Questions/Discussion

Contact Information

Helen Bailey

Director and Campus Architect

Facilities Planning, Design & Construction

Division of Finance & Administration

University of North Texas

Helen.Bailey@unt.edu

Kevan Will

Senior Account Manager

Sightlines

kwill@sightlines.com

Kent Pecora

Project Lead

Sightlines

kpecora@sightlines.com