As we discussed last month, certain facility types commonly have a relatively high percentage of nonreplaceable structure compared to the CRV. It’s easy to understand that about half the cost of a concrete parking structure is the loadbearing structure itself or that at least two-thirds of a simple utility building (pole barn or residential garage) consists of nonreplaceable structure. There is little else involved in the construction; no complex service systems.
Clients often ask why the value of a building’s component inventory doesn’t equal its CRV (Current Replacement Value). The short answer is a facility’s CRV includes the foundation, footings, support columns, piers and the like – permanent systems that are never renewed. The building component inventory should only include renewable items.
This is the fourth in an occasional series on this topic.
Previous posts have discussed deferred maintenance and illustrated the need to address total renewal needs, not just deferred needs. Options for measuring portfolio condition have been explored. We’ve looked at the establishment of funding targets based on desired conditions. Implicit in all these actions is the need to first determine what the existing renewal needs are and their costs. This installment addresses the two primary, often competing, means of conducting a facility condition assessment (FCA) .
This is the third in an occasional series on this topic.
We have now established that facilities renewal funding is a requirement, and deferred renewal is an all-too-constant fact of life. So, what should your renewal funding rate be? Our previous blog concluded that 2.0 to 2.5 percent of plant value is an acceptable range. But that is not always fiscally possible. What then should a facility manager do? Just give up? That’s not an acceptable option for a professional to follow, so let’s look at some guidelines for setting acceptable renewal rates.
This is the second in an occasional series on this topic. In this installment we will focus upon facilities renewal rates. We’ll begin by exploring what exactly facilities renewal entails.
Last month we talked about reframing the Deferred Maintenance debate, more properly thinking about it as Deferred Renewal. Regardless of the term, in California it’s a serious problem. The first step is to identify and measure the problem, which the large higher ed systems in that state have done. Learn more here.
This is the first in an occasional series on this topic.
Experienced Facility Management professionals are intimately familiar with the topics of deferred maintenance, facility renewal and capital reinvestment in facilities. If you are new to the FM world, you will shortly become acquainted with the terms, like it or not.
A while ago, FacilitiesNet posted a helpful how-to article on calculating HVAC lifecycle costs. We repost the link here for your reading pleasure.
When top management wants to postpone replacement of HVAC equipment, the facility department may be asked to get “one more year” out of the existing equipment. Worse, this request may be repeated the next year, and again in years after that.
ISES Corporation recently conducted an analysis of the impact of legacy building control systems, particularly pneumatic HVAC systems, on building system operations and on building users’ perception of maintenance staff. The following is a brief synopsis of those findings.
Pneumatic control systems dominated the commercial controls industry for most of the 20th century. They were inexpensive and easy to set up. However, these systems have inherent design and operational problems:
As I travel around the country discussing facility assessment projects and other facilities management initiatives, I am regularly confronted with facility managers who take the position that we need to tell the story to leadership, including a university’s administration or trustees, a city’s board of commissioners, or others holding pursestrings. Having spent three-and-a-half decades in the facilities management industry, I would like to posit a counter position: We should be telling truth to power, not telling a story.