Case study texas a&m a strategic approach
Download as PPTX, PDF•1 like•289 views
The document discusses Texas A&M's approach to reducing its deferred maintenance backlog. It originally totaled $1.6 billion but was scrubbed down to $720 million by removing projects beyond 10 years and separating E&G from auxiliary projects. The $720 million need was categorized by timeframe (0-3 years, 4-7 years, 8-10 years), investment criteria, and building portfolio. A priority process was recommended to set investment goals, fund the highest priority projects within 3 years for safety and reliability, and defer some projects between 7-10 years to reduce the backlog to a recommended funding level of $505 million.
Case study texas a&m a strategic approach
- 1. Case Study Texas A&M: A Strategic Approach to Your Deferral Rate Presented by: David Kadamus, President & CEO - Sightlines 1
- 2. Impact of Scrubbing and Adding Projects Original $1.6 billion FCA inventory scrubbed to $720 million The Scrubbing Process: • Segregated very large projects into Descriptive text goes here repairs, component replacement or full $1.7 system upgrade. $1.5 • Reassessing project timeframes • Separated E&G from Auxiliary projects • Interviews with the facility managers $1.3 and selected Deans to reconcile major $ Billions building needs with program directions. $1.1 $0.9 Baseline $0.720 $0.7 $0.5 Beginning FCA Scrubbed Out New Projects Current 10 Year Inventory Projects Added Inventory Scrubbed Out projects included projects beyond 10 years and auxiliaries 2 2
- 3. Summary of the E&G project inventory Projects by Category The Total $720 Million Need by Timeframe Descriptive text goes here C (8 to 10 Yrs.), $167 , B (4 to 7 Yrs.), 23% $364 , 51% A (0 to 3 Yrs.), $189 , 26% All Projects were codified by: • Timeframe • Capital Investment Category • Investment Criteria • Building Portfolio 3 3
- 4. Tools to Explain the Need All Projects were codified by: • Timeframe Descriptive text goes here • Capital Investment Category • Investment Criteria System Row Labels Repair/Renewal Modernization Grand Total A (0 to 3 yrs) $ 98,092,902 $ 90,429,308 $ 188,522,211 Reliability $ 43,907,861 $ 43,907,861 Safety/Code $ 13,824,807 $ 13,824,807 Asset Preservation $ 28,733,825 $ 66,505,273 $ 95,239,098 Program Improvement $ 11,626,409 $ 23,924,035 $ 35,550,444 B (4 to 7 yrs) $ 280,086,430 $ 84,213,291 $ 364,299,722 Reliability $ 79,240,171 $ 79,240,171 Safety/Code $ 37,146,965 $ 37,146,965 Asset Preservation $ 172,804,631 $ 215,745 $ 173,020,376 Economic Opportunity $ 4,327,942 $ 4,327,942 Program Improvement $ 23,713,686 $ 46,850,581 $ 70,564,266 C (8 to 10 yrs) $ 71,626,266 $ 95,044,077 $ 166,670,343 Safety/Code $ 65,058,511 $ 65,058,511 Asset Preservation $ 57,645,328 $ 57,645,328 Economic Opportunity $ 548,324 $ 548,324 Program Improvement $ 13,432,614 $ 29,985,566 $ 43,418,179 Grand Total $ 449,805,598 $ 269,686,676 $ 719,492,275 4 4
- 5. Understanding the Need By Portfolio $300 Millions $250 Descriptive text goes here $200 $150 $100 $50 $- Reliability Safety/Code Asset Preservation Program Improvement Economic Opportunity 5 5
- 6. Creating the Priority Process Total Project Inventory Define campus portfolios to Building Portfolio reflect institutional mission, goals, functions, etc… • A = within 3 years Timeframe • B = 4 to 7 years • C = 7 to 10 years Reliability; Asset Preservation; Investment Program; Safety / Code, and Opportunity Criteria (savings, grants, impact, sustainability ) Project Assigned by relationship to strategic plan, functional Score sustainability, new resources. “Breaking the ties” Project Plan 6
- 7. Recommendations From the Priority Process Setting The Base Investment Goal Deferral of Timeframe C, $143 Recommended Investment, $5 05 Deferral of Recommended Recommended Total Transitional Prioirity Actions Action Deferral* Backlog Projects, $72 Priority 1 Reliability Issues $ 107 $ - $ 107 Safety Issues $ 44 $ - $ 44 Transitional Portfolio $ 3 $ 72 $ 75 Sub Total $ 154 $ 72 $ 226 Priority 2 A Timetrame Issues Non-Transitional Portfolios $ 108 $ - $ 108 Priority 3 B Timetrame Issues Non-Transitional Portfolios $ 231 $ - $ 231 Priority 4 C Timeframe Legacy Projects $ 12 $ - $ 12 Priority 5 C Timetrame Issues Non-Transitional Portfolios $ - $ 143 $ 143 Total $ 505 $ 215 $ 720 7
- 8. Summary of Recommended Funding Plan 8
Editor's Notes
- #3: The “scrubbing” process involved: Segregating very large projects into repairs, component replacement or full system upgrade. Reassessing the timeframe of the projects. Separating E&G building projects from auxiliaries that include housing and athletics. Interviews with the facility managers and selected Deans to reconcile major building needs and to obtain a general understanding of the program direction in the College.The result of the “scrubbing” process was a project inventory for E&G buildings and the campus grounds / infrastructure of $720 million. Over half of the original FCA projects identified were restructured, moved to “X” timeframe – beyond 10 years, or excluded because the project was for an auxiliary, athletic or housing facility.
- #6: This slide details the needs by Building Portfolio and Investment Criteria. The Investment Criteria are:
- #7: To define a plan that reflects campus goals and is affordable, the prioritization process requires that each project be codified as to the investment horizon, building portfolio, and the investment criteria. Timeframe. To understand the investment horizon for a project, we recommend that each project is assigned a timeframe for action - A is within 3 years, B is 4 to 7 years, and C is 7 to 10 years.Building Portfolio. Each building (or grounds / infrastructure) is assigned to a Building Portfolio. The portfolios can be strategic, functional, programmatic, geographic, or a combination of these attributes.Investment Criteria. The investment criteria helps decision makers understand the outcome or impact of a project. Each project is assigned to one investment criteria. There are 5 categories - “Reliability, Safety / Code, Asset Preservation, Program Improvement, or Opportunities.”