Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
2012 University of Colorado Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus
Facilities Management Staffing Analysis
Analysis and Report by:
Jack Hug, President
Hug Consulting and Management Services
Jim Nelson, Facilities Manager
University of Colorado Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus
2
3
Executive Summary
The University of Colorado Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus (“University” within the text and “CUD”
within graphics) consists of two campuses: an urban research institution and a more traditional campus
consisting of undergraduate and graduate programs. This analysis of the University’s Facilities
Management (FM) staffing levels and types of activities used data from the Association of Physical Plant
Administrators (APPA) collected through Facilities Performance Indicator (FPI) surveys. The analysis
includes comparisons with individual peer institutions as well as with five group measures of peer
institutions.
The study focuses on core functions in maintenance, grounds and custodial, with cursory review of
project management and administrative services. The charts below and throughout the document
detail the University’s commitment to excellence and effective use of limited resources.
This summary highlights staffing levels. Supporting details are included within the analysis report.
1. This measure indicates the total number of
University Facilities staff as compared to our
peer universities. Adequate staffing ensures
the campus grounds and buildings are clean
and well maintained; the building systems
support a world-class research and learning
environment for our faculty and students.
2. These four graphs present overall Gross Square Footage (GSF) and the number of FM staff for
three of the Facility Core Functions (Maintenance, Custodial, and Grounds), comparing the
University with our peer universities.
Figure 1
Figure 2 Figure 3
4
3. While the above graphs depict the University to fall near the middle of groups analyzed, the
closer analysis which follows shows efficient use of resources to achieve higher than average
results. Within the peer group the University is matched only by East Carolina University Health
Sciences (ECUHS) and Washington University School of Medicine (WUSOM) in high service levels
for Custodial, Grounds and Maintenance, achieving a Service Level 2 for each of those
categories. The highest service level, 1, was not achieved by any institution in the peer group or
similar Carnegie Classification.
4. Moreover, comparing averages of five groups of peer institutions, the University FM achieved
this high level of service with the lowest operating cost (AFOE) per square foot and per
replacement value of facilities (CRV):
Figure 4 Figure 5
Figure 6 Figure 7
5
Contents
Executive Summary
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acronyms and Terms Defined
Introduction
Peer Selection
Survey Measures
1. Facilities Funding Measures
2. Operating Costs and Staffing Measures for Facility Core Functions
3. Presentation and Analysis of Measures
4. The Peer Group General Comparison with Service Levels
Measurement Highlights
1. Facilities Management Budget
2. Maintenance
3. Custodial
4. Grounds
5. Energy and Utilities
6. Construction and Project Management
7. Facilities Administration
Appendix A – About the Authors
Appendix B – Institutions and Organizations Reviewed
Appendix C – About the APPA Service Levels
Appendix D – Current Replacement Value for Both Campuses
Appendix E – Staffing Comparison Adjustments
6
List of Figures
Figure 1 Facilities FTE
Figure 2 Campus GSF
Figure 3 Maintenance FTE
Figure 4 Custodial FTE
Figure 5 Grounds FTE
Figure 6 AFOE $/GSF
Figure 7 Five Averages AFOE %/CRV
Figure 8 Core Function Expense
Figure 9 AFOE $/GSF
Figure 10 Five Averages AFOE %/CRV
Figure 11 FTE Maintenance
Figure 12 Maintenance $/GSF
Figure 13 Maintenance GSF/FTE
Figure 14 Custodial FTE
Figure 15 Custodial GSF/FTE
Figure 16 Custodial $/GSF
Figure 17 Grounds FTE
Figure 18 Grounds Acres/FTE
Figure 19 Grounds $/Acre
Figure 20 Grounds $/AFOE
Figure 21 Utility and Energy FTE
Figure 22 PU $/MMBTU
Figure 23 PU $/GSF
Figure 24 Total MMBTU
Figure 25 Administration FTE
Figure 26 Administration GSF/FTE
7
List of Tables
Table 1 Peer Group General Comparison with Service Levels
Table 2 Core Function Expense as % of AFOE
Table 3 Construction A&E Department Staffing at 40 Universities, by Enrollment
Table 4 Comparison of Facilities Administration Staffing
Appendix D Current Replacement Value for Anschutz Medical Campus and Denver Campus
8
Acronyms and Definitions of Terms
(See Appendix B for Acronyms of Institutions and Organizations)
$/GSF Cost per Gross Square Foot
$/MMBTU Energy Cost per Million Metric British Thermal Unit
A&E Architecture & Engineering
AFOE Annual Facilities Operating Expenditures
AFOE/GSF Annual Facilities Operating Expenditures per Gross Square Foot
AHEC Auraria Higher Education Center
APPA Association of Physical Plant Administrators
BTU British Thermal Unit
CRV Current Replacement Value
Charge-back Expensed for work performed on tenant assets and reimbursed
Cleanable GSF Total building area less area not cleaned by custodians
CUP Central Utility Plant
FM Facilities Management
FPI Facilities Performance Indicator Survey
FTE Full Time Equivalent
GSF Gross Square Feet
MMBTU Million Metric British Thermal Unit
Overall Total aggregate values for all APPA FPI participating universities
PU Purchased Utilities Expenditures
9
2012 University of Colorado Denver|Anschutz Medical Campus Facilities Management Staffing Analysis
Introduction
The University of Colorado Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus (“University” within the text and “CUD”
within graphics) consists of two campuses: an urban research institution and a more traditional campus
consisting of undergraduate and graduate programs. This analysis of the University’s Facilities
Management (FM) staffing levels and types of activities used data from the Association of Physical Plant
Administrators (APPA) collected through Facilities Performance Indicator (FPI) surveys. The analysis
includes comparisons with peer institutions.
The study focuses on core functions in maintenance, grounds and custodial, with cursory review of
project management and administrative services. The charts throughout the document detail the
University’s commitment to excellence and effective use of limited resources.
The APPA-FPI survey data utilized in the analysis were generated using selected institutions from the
2010-11 survey (two campuses) and 10 campuses from the 2011-12 survey. The 2011-12 Survey has
more than 250 institutions in its data base. Oversight for the APPA-FPI is provided through the APPA
Information and Research Committee which maintains an open forum for communicating with the
participating institutions to help ensure accuracy of reporting. See Appendix B for list of institutions and
Carnegie Classifications included in the study.
There are a number of advantages in using the APPA FPI Survey data in developing the staffing analysis
and cost comparisons. A major advantage is having a “living document” that can be updated over time.
Additionally, Excel provides the flexibility of using charts and graphs to improve communication and
share information.
It is important to recognize that there are no exact peer institutions because there are so many variables
that make up a particular college or university physical plant. There are also a variety of different
circumstances affecting every institution’s unique set of facility assets. Some of these variables include
the campus maintenance philosophy and service level standards, quality of facility construction,
capabilities of facilities staff, quality of leadership and management, and workforce culture.
Several important factors make up the profile of facilities and infrastructure: consideration for multiple
sites, facility density, age and condition, number of people on campus, facility complexity, type of space,
and maintenance history. All of these variables and differences are relevant to include in any attempt to
answer the age-old question: How much is enough? Discerning the optimal size of the workforce in
order to achieve effectiveness and efficiency requires one to proceed with caution when arriving at a
conclusion and interpretation of the numbers.
APPA institutional members, who invest time and energy working with the FPI, generally come away
with a deeper and more meaningful understanding about their respective institutions. This, in itself, is a
most valuable learning experience. There is value in knowing your own institution’s vital statistics and in
10
comparing yourself internally year over year to identify targeted measures and to be positioned to
recognize trends, both positive and negative.
Peer Selection The seven institutions comprising the peer-group for this analysis were selected based on the following
considerations:
A list of 26 peer Institutions was provided by Associate Vice Chancellor David Turnquist. The
APPA database was searched to find those institutions on the provided list that participated in
the 2011-2012 Survey.
A selection from the peer list of institutions with a Carnegie Classification: Special Medical
Institution. There are currently only eight Special Medical Institutions in the APPA data base.
Data submitted by two institutions were deemed not reliable and not included in this study.
Only institutions not including auxiliary enterprise in their FPI Survey were chosen as peers to
keep reporting profiles consistent.
One additional university, the University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) was added, although
there are auxiliary enterprises that are treated as general fund operations at the CUD campuses.
The seven peer institutions include the following:
CUB – University of Colorado Boulder
ECUHS – East Carolina University Health Sciences
MCG – Medical College of Georgia
MUSC – Medical University of South Carolina
OHSU – Oregon Health Sciences University
UMB – University of Maryland Baltimore
WUSOM – Washington University School of Medicine
In addition to the peer group of seven institutions, this report makes uses of average performance levels
provided in the following database aggregates (referred to in this report as the 5 Averages):
Overall Participants – Total aggregate values for all APPA FPI participating universities (OVERALL)
RMA – Rocky Mountain Association of APPA members (RMA)
Carnegie Classification, Special Medical Institution (SP.MD)
Carnegie classification for Very High Research Institution (RU/VH)
Peer Group includes the Special Medical Institutions and University of Colorado Boulder (PEER)
11
Survey Measures The survey data were assembled to provide the following two primary measures: facility funding
measures and operating costs and staffing measures for facility core functions.
1. Facilities Funding Measures The APPA-FPI facilities funding measures include:
Annual Facilities Operating Expenditures (AFOE)
Operating Expenditures as a % of Current Replacement Value (CRV)
Annual Facilities Operating Expenses per Gross Square Foot (AFOE/GSF)
Purchased Utilities Expenditures (PU)
Energy Cost per MMBTU ($/MMBTU)
Energy Cost per GSF ($/GSF)
2. Operating Costs and Staffing Measures for Facility Core Functions Measures for operating costs and staffing included the following:
Building Maintenance
Custodial
Landscape and Grounds
Energy and Utilities
Construction and Renovation
Administration
Not all of the institutions provided complete data on all the components selected for comparison but
the data utilized for the analysis are thought to be an actual representation of the measurement
definitions. Collectively, these measures provide a good picture of how the University compares on its
facilities staffing and annual expenditures.
It is important to realize that the APPA-FPI Core Functions may appear similar to the financial and
human resource organizations the University has created in PeopleSoft. However, they are vastly
different when examined at a detailed level. Reporting APPA-FPI data requires significant budget and
staffing adjustments to convert functions from the University’s categories to those used in the FPI.
Operating cost measures for the six core functional areas listed above include:
Cost per gross square foot
Cost for each core competency as a % of annual facilities operating expenditure (AFOE)
Labor cost
Non-labor cost
Outsourced cost
Total expenditure
The staffing measures also follow the six core functional areas and include:
12
Number of FTE
Gross square feet or acres assigned per FTE
Not included in this analysis but available in the APPA-FPI are numbers of FTE listed by job classification,
salary, and benefits for staff in each of the six functional areas.
3. Presentation and Analysis of Measures Building on the APPA-FPI measures, this report presents and analyses the following meaningful
measures through charts in the section on Measurement Highlights:
Facilities Management Budget
Maintenance
Custodial
Grounds
Energy & Utilities
Construction A&E
Facilities Administration
4. The Peer Group General Comparison with Service Levels Finally, Table 1 below presents an overview comparison of the peer group, including the University.
Table 1: Peer Group Overview Comparison
Tag AFOE GSFM
Avg Bld Age
Custodial Service Level
Grounds Service Level
Maint. Service Level
Fac. FTE
East Carolina University/ Health Sciences ECUHS $6,862,000 1,339,863 17 yr. 2 2 2 118
Medical College of Georgia MCG $7,338,814 2,411,715 48 yr. 3 3 3 144
Washington University School of Medicine WUSOM $24,711,014 6,589,727 40 yr. 2 2 2 357
Oregon Health Sciences University OHSU $15,303,428 3,131,636 43 yr. 3 3 3 153
University of Maryland Baltimore UMB $21,160,195 3,507,834 12 yr. 2 3 2 332
Medical University of South Carolina MUSC $16,167,465 5,168,488 22 yr. 3 3 3 260
Universlty of Colorado Boulder CUB $25,117,174 4,669,359 56 yr. 4 3 3 252
University of Colorado Denver CUD $14,151,085 4,302,698 26 yr. 2 2 2 134
13
APPA Service Level definitions are in Appendix C of this document.
Measurement Highlights In the following Custodial, Grounds, and Maintenance graphs Service Level is indicated by colored
columns: Orange for Level 2; Red for Level 3; and, Green for Level 4 with Level 1 being the highest
quality.
University staffing level is based on performed functions versus actual budget counts.
1. Facilities Management Budget It is important to place costs of the core functions in the context of the overall funding levels for FM
Operations and Maintenance. The University’s FM Department Annual Facilities Operating Expenditures
(AFOE) is $14,151,085. The Cost Replacement Value (CRV) of the campus buildings and infrastructure is
$1,514,558,944. See Appendix D for GSF and CRV.
Table 2 Figure 8
In this report Construction A&E staff and budget are excluded from the analysis. This enables a more
realistic comparison with CU Boulder which reports Construction A&E as an auxiliary.
The University’s Annual Operating Facilities Expenditures/Gross Square Foot (AFOE/GSF) is
lowest among the five averages. This is the annual amount invested in the campus per Gross
Square Foot.
Also the University’s FM Annual Operating Expenditures as a percentage of Current
Replacement Value are the lowest among the five averages. This is the percent of the value of
the campus annually invested in maintenance and operation of facilities.
MAINTENANCE 48.10%
CUSTODIAL 19.96%
FM. ADMINISTRATION 18.41%
CONSTRUCTION & A&E 7.22%
GROUNDS 4.79%
ENERGY & UTILITIES 1.51%
Core Function Expense as % of AFOE
14
2. Maintenance The measures utilized for Maintenance include the number of full time equivalents (FTE), GSF/FTE,
$/GSF, Service Level, and % AFOE. The University’s FM reported a Service Level 2 for maintenance, and
among the peer group there are three other institutions reporting Service Level 2: a high quality service
level. Maintenance Service Levels 1 (best) to 5 (worst) are defined in Appendix C.
GSF/FTE is lowest among the peer institutions and the lowest among the 5 Averages; a mix of
level 2 and level 3.
$/GSF is within the ranges of peers and the 5 Averages and a comparatively higher service
level than peer institutions.
When comparing GSF/FTE using only those institutions who reported Service Level 2, the
University is on a par with its peers, with only WUSOM providing more coverage per each
maintenance staff while at the same service level as the University. However, WUSOM
maintenance cost per GSF is nearly 25% higher than the University’s cost per GSF.
Figure 10 Figure 9
15
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 1
16
This is an area of potential opportunity for cost per GSF improvement; however, operating on two
campuses adds inefficiency costs, from traveling to and from, that should be taken into account.
3. Custodial Custodial services meaningful measures include number of FTE, GSF assigned per FTE and/or Cleanable
Square Feet (CSF), $/GSF, Service Level, and %/AFOE. The University is the only campus in the
comparisons that contracts Custodial Services. Custodial Service Levels 1 (best) to 5 (worst) are defined
in Appendix C.
The GSF/FTE is low for the University’s FM when compared to the peer group and the 5
averages. This indicates a higher ratio of cleaning staff to the amount of gross square feet each
FTE covers, which allows the University to maintain a higher service level than other
institutions.
Cost, $/GSF, is within range of peers and the 5 group averages. This indicates that while the
costs the University incurs for cleaning is comparable to other institutions, the service level is
higher for the University than the other institutions.
These results hold in the comparison with other the institutions who report a Level 2 (a high
standard on a scale of 1-5). In addition, the University within range of its peers on the %/AFOE.
This indicates that the resources are effectively utilized to achieve better results.
Figure 13
17
Figure 12
Figure 13
18
Although costs ($/GSF) are within range, the low GSF/FTE seems to indicate an opportunity to achieve
an even lower cost, while maintaining a Level 2 service quality. However, hidden costs exist due to
patient-care-area cleaning standards requiring premium service in some University buildings. These
additional tasks include: trash removal twice daily; cleaning floors and counters daily; and disinfecting
surfaces daily. These clinics, therapy areas, and exercise and locker rooms aggregate to over 100,000
GSF.
4. Grounds The Grounds measures relate to campus acres maintained and include # FTE, Acres/FTE, $/Acre, Service
Level, and %/AFOE. Grounds Service Levels 1(best) to 5 (worst) are defined in Appendix C.
Acres/FTE is within range of peer institutions and the 5 Averages.
Cost ($/Acre) is within range of peer institutions and the 5 Averages.
Grounds % AFOE is on the lower end of the range of both peer institutions and the 5 Averages
but has a higher service level than peer institutions.
The University FM reports a Service Level 2: a high quality level.
Figure 14
19
0
5
10
15
20
25
WUSOM UMB OHSU CUD ECUHS MCG CUB MUSC
Grounds FTE APPA
Service Level 1
(Best)
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5 (Worst)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
MUSC MCG UMB OHSU CUD CUB WUSOM ECUHS
Grounds Acres/FTE APPA
Service Level 1
(Best)
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5 (Worst)
Figure 15
Figure 16
20
Hospitals on site reimburse 5% of grounds expenses (about $40K annually). These graphs indicate that
while the University FM costs and coverage are similar to other institutions, the service level is higher
than those other institutions.
Figure 17
Figure 20
21
5. Energy & Utilities The Energy and Utility measures include # FTE, $/GSF, and %/AFOE for the staff performing energy and
utilities operations. Also included are Purchased Utilities (PU) energy cost and consumption measures.
These measures include PU-$/GSF, cost per energy unit ($/MMBTU), PU as % AFOE, Total MMBTU and
energy unity (BTU) per GSF (BTU/GSF).
The University is within the range of peer institutions and within the range of the 5 Averages.
CU Denver | Anschutz Facilities budgets 3 FTE in Facilities Engineering to support the Central Utility
Plant (CUP). The CUP auxiliary operation has 18 FTE as supervisors and operators.
University PU rates reflect overhead for staff and recovery of costs for Central Utility Plant construction.
Figure 22
Figure 21
22
Figure 23
Figure 24
23
6. Construction & Project Management The Facilities Management profession has struggled to identify relevant and meaningful measures of
workload for this core area. For example; there is no universal agreement on how many projects a
project manager can effectively manage and it is widely recognized that there are many variables that
must be considered including capabilities of the Project Manager, complexity of the project, site
condition, dollar amount of project, special considerations including customer and other administrative
stakeholders, politics, etc. Only five institutions from among those selected reported #/FTE for
Construction A&E.
Project management staffing level is driven by project workload and complexity of projects and having
adequate project management available to meet campus design and construction needs. The University
has eight Project Managers that worked on 177 projects valued at $58 million last fiscal year with
support from the project coordinator and administrative position. Project durations range from two
months to four to five years for large capital projects, from project inception through the one year
warranty. Each project has the same required steps of scope development/estimating, design,
construction, equipment and furnishings, and all related procurement and contracting. Renovations
represent the majority of the University’s projects and are more time intensive to minimize disruption to
occupants.
The University’s project management also covers lease space construction, project oversight on several
million square feet of Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC) buildings that the University
occupies, two campus locations, and site infrastructure that includes Children's Hospital Colorado and
University Hospital at the Anschutz Medical Campus. The two building inspectors cover University
buildings at our two campus locations and also 6.8 million square feet of Children's Hospital Colorado
and University Hospital space and all of their projects.
Another important consideration in how Project Management is handled in other institutions is either
treating the function as an auxiliary enterprise or as a general fund expense. In other cases, the
institution hires an outside firm to provide the management of projects so that the institution has no
staff for this function at all. The true measure of the cost of buildings and renovations would normally
include project management as a project expense, either charging the project as an auxiliary function or
as another project expense for outside management. The University funds Project Management as a
general fund expense, so the reported cost of buildings and renovations is somewhat reduced.
Table3 below shows forty institutions with varying number of staff within Project Management. It can
be seen that larger institutions such as San Diego State University has only two project managers while
their enrollment is one of the largest at nearly 34,000 students. Conversely, the University of Colorado
Boulder has 24 project managers with an enrollment of over 30,000. The University (CUD), while in a
growth mode, has eight project managers and the enrollment is 18,000. Based on size of institution, the
University appears to be using the limited resources very effectively.
Table 3 presents data collected on other university Construction A&E Departments. The highlighted data
from the University and CU Boulder are from 2011-2012; the rest of the data were collected in 2006.
The data are sorted by enrollment.
24
Hospita
l only
Institution Univ
ers
ity A
rchite
ct
Univ
ers
ity P
lanner
Asst/A
ssoc.U
niv
ers
ity A
rch.
Adm
inis
trativ
e A
ssis
tant
Accountin
g/F
inancia
l
Pro
ject M
anagers
Assis
tant P
roje
ct M
anagers
Inte
rior
Desig
ners
Pro
ject In
specto
rs
CA
DD
/GIS
pers
onnel
Arc
hiv
es m
anagem
ent
Susta
inability
pla
nner
Sm
all
pro
ject m
anagers
Arc
hite
cts
Environm
Gra
phic
Desig
ner
Landscape A
rchite
ct
Purc
hasin
g a
gent
QA
/QC
Regula
tory
entit
lem
ent dir.
Pro
gra
mm
er/
space m
anager
His
toric p
ropert
y c
ura
tor
Contr
act adm
inis
trato
r
Em
erg
ency p
repare
dness p
lanner
Space p
lanners
Constr
uctio
n s
taff
IT p
ers
on
Engin
eers
/PM
s
SU
M
En
rollm
en
t
x West Va U Hopsital 1 1 1 1 1 5 2,500
x KU Medical Center 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 10 2,600
U of Richmond 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 8.5 4,000
The College of New
Jersey1 1 3 3 4 1 1 13.5 5,500
Emporia U 1 1 1 3 6,000
Johns Hopkins U 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 1 1 15 6,600
Santa Clara U 1 1 2 1 5 8,397
U of Denver 0 10,000
Saginaw Valley State 1 1 1 1 4 10,000
Vanderbilt U 1 2 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 15 11,481
Western Washington
U1 2 1 6 3 1 3 2 3 21.6 11,700
U of Rhode Island 1 1 1 2 2 7 2 2 17.5 13,000
U of Miami of Ohio 1 1 1 9 2 1 1 1 16.5 16,000
Georgia Tech 1 1 1 5 9 2 1 5 1 25.5 16,000
Central Oklahoma 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 10 16,500
New Mexico state U 1 2 1 7 2 1 14 16,500
Simon Frasier U 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 10.5 17,000
Rice University 1 1 5 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 29 17,900
University of Colorado
Denver 1 8 1 10 18,001
California Polytechnic 1 3 3 2 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 22 18,500
Washington State U 1 1 1 3 3 11 2 9 4 2 1 38 18,700
Towson 1 1 2 2 5 3 1 1 2 18 19,000
U of Oregon 1 1 1 5 3 5 2 1 19 21,000
Auburn U 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 10 24,000
U of Illinois 1 1 4 5 7 3 1 1 2 25 24,000
Columbia U 1 1 1 5 16 10 3 1 1 39 24,400
Iowa State 1 1 1 5 7 2 7 1 1 4 3 1 1 3 38 25,000
Virginia Tech 1 1 ? ? 1 1 ? 1 1 1 7 26,000
Florida Atlantic U 1 1 5 6 3 5 3 1 1 26 26,000
U of Kansas 1 1 4 2 2 10 1 1 2 2 26 26,900
UNC Chapel Hill 1 1 3 2 3 11 10 3 3 1 1 39 27,600
U of Iowa 1 1 1 1 ? 6 2 ? 3 2 # 26 30,000
North Carolina State
u1 3 2 2 2 4 2 1 5 1 4 27 30,000
Univ of Colorado 1 2 3 5 11 2 3 4 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 7 6 55 30,000
University of Colorado
Boulder 8 24 6 38 30,034
Va Commonwealth U 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 4 1 1 1 1 19 30,300
U Southern California 1 3 5 1 10 3 1 1 25 33,000
San Diego State U 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 11.5 33,700
Univerity of Arizona 1 1 1 4 3 12 4 1 2 1 1 2 1 33.5 37,000
Purdue U 1 1 1 2 4 23 1 27 2 3 65 39,228
Table 3:
Construction A&E Department Staffing at 40 Universities, by Enrollment
25
7. Facilities Administration The measures selected for Facilities Administration include: Number of FTE; the GSF per FTE; the cost
per GSF; and, the percentage of AFOE. The use of the measure GSF/FTE is arguably not the best way to
measure administrative workload but it is the only Administrative Workload measure in the FPI.
Reporting Administrative staff levels in APPA-FPI is difficult due to the survey’s limited position
descriptions. We obtained a copy of CU Boulder’s organization chart and applied the same definitions
and auxiliary/non-auxiliary rules to the University and to CU Boulder. See a direct comparison for the
University and CU Boulder administrative staff in Appendix E.
Chief Fac Officer
FTE
Assoc/ Assist
Dir FTE
Bus/ Budget
Mgr FTE
HR Mgr FTE
Training Officer
FTE
Compu Progr/ Analyst
FTE
Othr Admn Mgrs FTE
Secty/ Clerk FTE
Othr Admn
FTE Total
Univ Colorado /Boulder 1.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 10.0 3.0 36.0 70.0
Univ Colorado /Denver 1.0 5.6 3.5 2.0 1.9 3.8 8.0 25.8
Univ Maryland/ Baltimore 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 15.0
Washington Univ School of Medicine 1.0 5.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 23.0
Medical University of South Carolina 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 18.0
RMA Average 1.0 2.3 2.4 1.0 1.2 2.8 3.5 4.4 3.9 22.5
RMA Count 20.0 15.0 14.0 6.0 3.0 10.0 10.0 16.0 13.0
The University’s decentralized control and operations on two campuses cause additional
administrative burden as compared to our peer group members reporting in the 2011-2012 FPI.
Table 4 above is somewhat deceptive in total number of FTE in administration. The APPA-FPI definitions
do not clearly define what should be included and leave much of the interpretation up to the institution.
The University includes a number of FTE in the general fund budget that could be included within the
functional work units. It is expected that this report will be updated on a regular basis and the
University will be able to get better definitions for how administration FTE should be treated.
Figure 26 Figure 25
Table 4: Comparison of Facilities Administration Staffing
Appendix A – About the Authors
About Jack Hug Jack Hug is retired from the University of California San Diego (UCSD) where he spent his last 20 years as the Assistant Vice Chancellor Facilities Management for the campus in Lajolla and the UCSD Medical Center. Prior to joining UCSD Jack served as Director of Facilities at California State Northridge, and campuses in Nebraska, Alabama, Georgia. Jack has over 40 years of Facilities Management experience at the Director and Assistant Vice Chancellor levels. Jack served as the Association of Physical Plant Administrators (APPA) president in 1989-90, is the recipient of APPA's Meritorious Service Award, an APPA Fellow, a faculty member at the APPA Leadership Academy, and serves as a content coordinator for the APPA Body of Knowledge publication. Since retiring from UCSD in 2003, Jack relocated to Colorado Springs and serves as a Facilities Management organizational consultant, performing over 50 APPA Facilities Management Evaluation Programs across the country in colleges and universities, and serves as an APPA consultant for the Facilities performance Indicator program (FPI).
About Jim Nelson Jim Nelson is a manager for the University of Colorado Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus, working for the Facilities Management Department since 1999. He has a BS in Business Administration, and holds APPA’s certification as an Education Facility Professional and a Stationary Engineer. Jim manages the department’s Customer Service Center, operations and maintenance crews, and the department’s building information and enterprise asset management programs. Jim also generates operating analytics for the department and annually collects data for submission to the APPA Facilities Performance Indicators survey and report.
27
Appendix B – Institutions and Organizations Reviewed Organization in boldface, the 5 Averages, provided average performance level data used in the
analysis.
APPA Association of Physical Plant Administrators
CUB University of Colorado Boulder
ECUHS East Carolina University Health Sciences
MCG Medical College of Georgia
MUSC Medical University of South Carolina
OHSU Oregon Health Sciences University
Overall Total aggregate values for all APPA-FPI participating universities
RMA Rocky Mountain Association of APPA
Peer Includes Special Medical Institutions and the University of Colorado Boulder
UMB University of Maryland Baltimore
WUSOM Washington University School of Medicine
RU/VH Carnegie Classification for Very High Research Institution
SP.MD Carnegie Classification for Special Medical Institution
28
Appendix C – About the APPA Service Levels
Custodial Service Levels Level 1 Orderly Spotlessness:
Floors and base moldings shine and/or are bright and clean; colors are fresh. There is no build-up
in corners or along walls.
All vertical and horizontal surfaces have a freshly cleaned or polished appearance and have no
accumulation of dust, dirt, marks, streaks, smudges, or fingerprints. Lights all work and fixtures
are clean.
Washroom and shower fixtures and tile gleam and are odor-free. Supplies are adequate.
Trash containers and pencil sharpeners hold only daily waste, are clean and odor-free.
Level 2 Ordinary Tidiness:
Floors and base moldings shine and/or are bright and clean. There is no build-up in corners or
along walls, but there can be up to two days’ worth of dust, dirt, stains, or streaks.
All vertical and horizontal surfaces are clean, but marks, dust, smudges, and fingerprints are
noticeable upon close observation. Lights all work and fixtures are clean.
Washroom and shower fixtures and tile gleam and are odor-free. Supplies are adequate.
Trash containers and pencil sharpeners hold only daily waste, are clean and odor-free.
Level 3 Casual Inattention:
Floors are swept or vacuumed clean, but upon close observation there can be stains. A build-up
of dirt and/or floor finish in corners and along walls can be seen.
There are dull spots and/or matted carpet in walking lanes. There are streaks or splashes on base
molding.
All vertical and horizontal surfaces have obvious dust, dirt, marks, smudges, and fingerprints.
Lamps all work and fixtures are clean.
Trash containers and pencil sharpeners hold only daily waste, are clean and odor-free.
Level 4 Moderate Dinginess:
Floors are swept or vacuumed clean, but are dull, dingy, and stained. There is a noticeable build-
up of dirt and/or floor finish in corners and along walls.
There is a dull path and/or obviously matted carpet in the walking lanes. Base molding is dull and
dingy with streaks or splashes.
29
All vertical and horizontal surfaces have conspicuous dust, dirt, smudges, fingerprints, and marks.
Lamp fixtures are dirty and some lamps (up to five percent) are burned out.
Trash containers and pencil sharpeners have old trash and shavings. They are stained and
marked. Trash containers smell sour.
Level 5 Unkempt Neglect:
Floors and carpets are dull, dirty, dingy, scuffed, and/or matted. There is a conspicuous build-up
of old dirt and/or floor finish in corners and along walls. Base molding is dirty, stained, and
streaked. Gum, stains, dirt, dust balls, and trash are broadcast.
All vertical and horizontal surfaces have major accumulations of dust, dirt, smudges, and
fingerprints, all of which will be difficult to remove. Lack of attention is obvious.
Light fixtures are dirty with dust balls and flies. Many lamps (more than five percent) are burned
out.
Trash containers and pencil sharpeners overflow. They are stained and marked. Trash containers
smell sour.
Grounds Service Levels Level 1 Turf Care State-of-the-Art Maintenance:
Grass height maintained according to species and variety of grasses. Mowed at least once every five days.
Aeration as required but not less than four times per year. Reseeding or re-sodding as needed. Weed
control to be practiced so that no more than one percent of the surface has weeds present.
Level 2 Turf High-Level Maintenance:
Grass cut once every five working days. Aeration as required but not less than two times per year.
Reseeding or resodding when bare spots are present. Weed control practiced when weeds present a
visible problem or when weeds represent 5 percent of the turf surface. Some pre-emergent products
may be used at this level.
Level 3 Turf Moderate-Level Maintenance:
Grass cut once every ten working days. Normally not aerated unless turf quality indicates a need or in
anticipation of an application of fertilizers. Re-seeding or re-sodding done only when major bare spots
appear. Weed control measures normally used when 50 percent of small areas are weed infested or
when 15 percent of the general turf is infested with weeds.
Level 4 Turf Moderately Low-Level Maintenance:
Low frequency mowing scheduled based on species. Low growing grasses may not be mowed. High
grasses may receive periodic mowing. Weed control limited to legal requirements for noxious weeds.
30
Level 5 Turf Minimum-Level Maintenance:
Low frequency mowing scheduled based on species. Low growing grasses may not be mowed. High
grasses may receive periodic mowing. Weed control limited to legal requirements for noxious weeds.
Maintenance Service Levels Level 1: Showpiece Facility:
Maintenance activities appear highly focused. Typically, equipment and building components are fully
functional and in excellent operating condition. Service and maintenance calls are responded to
immediately. Buildings and equipment are regularly upgraded, keeping them current with modern
standards and usage.
Level 2: Comprehensive Stewardship:
Maintenance activities appear organized with direction. Equipment and building components are usually
functional and in operating condition. Service and maintenance calls are responded to in a timely
manner. Buildings and equipment are regularly upgraded, keeping them current with modern standards
and usage.
Level 3: Managed Care:
Maintenance activities appear to be somewhat organized, but they remain people-dependent.
Equipment and building components are mostly functional, but they suffer occasional breakdowns.
Service and maintenance call response times are variable and sporadic without apparent cause. Buildings
and equipment are periodically upgraded to current standards and usage, but not enough to control the
effects of normal usage and deterioration.
Level 4: Reactive Management:
Maintenance activities appear to be somewhat chaotic and are people-dependent. Equipment and
building components are frequently broken and inoperative. Service and maintenance calls are typically
not responded to in a timely manner. Normal usage and deterioration continues unabated, making
buildings and equipment inadequate to meet present usage needs.
Level 5: Crisis Response:
Maintenance activities appear chaotic and without direction. Equipment and building components are
routinely broken and inoperative. Service and maintenance calls are never responded to in a timely
manner. Normal usage and deterioration continues unabated, making buildings and equipment
inadequate to meet present usage needs.
31
Appendix D – Current Replacement Value for Both Campuses
Current Replacement value for Anschutz Medical Campus and Denver Campus 10/15/12 updated
Buildings GSF Capitalized original
budget (if available) year completed
RS Means
adjustment to
2012 dollars
Current
Replacement Value
in 2012
Academic Office 1 204,974 $35,707,591 2007 113.81% $40,640,045
Barbara Davis Center 112,646 $28,273,193 2004/2006 127.18% $35,956,937
Building 400 31331 n./a 1940 n/a $6,266,200
Building 401 22656 n./a 1940 n/a $4,531,200
Building 402 22632 n./a 1940 n/a $4,526,400
Building 406 19485 n./a 1940 n/a $3,897,000
Building 407 Police Building 19509 n./a 1940 n/a $3,901,800
Building 500 479,660 n/a 1941 included $143,463,300
Building 524 Red Cross 13,176 n./a 1918 100.00% $5,563,350
Building 533 5,080 n/a 1980 n/a $1,016,000
Building 534 3,299 n/a 1990 n/a $659,800
Building 610 6,960 n/a n/a $1,392,000
Campus Services 68,333 $17,754,152 2007 113.81% $20,206,615
Central Utility Plant (CUP) 82,156 $48,543,011 2003/2007/2012 127.18% $61,735,439
CU Denver Bldg (Dravo) 205,128 n/a 1977 n/a $61,538,400
Education 1 115,251 $35,201,971 2007 113.81% $40,064,581
Education 2 North 160,454 $38,571,052 2007 113.81% $43,899,048
Education 2 South 114,922 $27,625,752 2007 113.81% $31,441,824
Environmental Health & Safety 21,002 $5,037,495 2004/2007 127.18% $6,406,524
Fire Station (Building 531) 4,829 n/a n/a $965,800
Fulginiti Center for Bioethics &
Hu
19,475 $8,245,692 2012 100.00% $8,245,692
Anschutz Health and Wellness
Ctr
95,141 $30,350,182 2012 100.00% $30,350,182
Health Sciences Library 113,005 $32,673,705 2007 113.81% $37,187,074
Henderson Parking Garage 495,499 $23,675,248 2007 113.81% $26,945,619
1475 Lawrence St Court 156,261 n/a 1982 n/a $46,878,300
Lawrence Street Center 211,903 n/a 1982 n/a $63,570,900
Nighthorse Campbell Native
Health
45,396 $10,427,841 2002 149.81% $15,621,505
PASCAL 28,906 $7,667,271 2001/2008 127.18% $10,334,485
Perinatal Research Facility 24,128 n/a 1980/2002 n/a $9,651,200
Perinatal Facility Modular East 4,014 n/a $602,100
Perinatal Facility Modular West 503 n/a $75,450
Pharmacy & Pharmaceut.
Sciences
171,416 $57,405,294 2011 103.82% $59,600,111
Research 2 479,085 $238,435,169 2008 106.87% $254,824,283
Research 1 North/ED1A 344,703 $126,068,112 2004 134.17% $169,143,577
Research 1 South 283,720 $103,764,820 2004 134.17% $139,219,605
School of Dental Medicine 116,060 $37,608,420 2005/2011 106.87% $40,193,478
4,302,698 $645,594,619 $1,430,515,823
Infrastructure
Infrastructure Phase 1 $4,000,000 2001 154.12% $6,164,668
Infrastructure Phase 2 $20,190,703 2002 149.81% $30,246,834
Infr astructure Phase 3 $5,100,000 2004 134.17% $6,842,589
Infrastructure Phase 4a & 4b $957,145 2002 149.81% $1,433,858
Infrastructure Phase 5a $5,379,497 2004 134.17% $7,217,585
Infrastructure Phase 6 $1,322,508 2005 127.18% $1,681,923
Infrastructure Phase 7 $5,424,376 2005 127.18% $6,898,547
Infrastructure Phase 8 $4,357,389 2007 113.81% $4,959,295
Infrastructure Phase 9 $5,424,376 2007 113.81% $6,173,670
Infrastructure Phase 10 $1,282,093 2007 113.81% $1,459,194
Infrastructure Phase 10b $5,349,033 2007 113.81% $6,087,919
Surface Parking $4,097,925 2006 119.01% $4,877,037
4,302,698 $62,885,045 $84,043,120
Total $1,514,558,944
32
Appendix E – Staffing Comparison Adjustments
1. University and CU Boulder Administrative Staff Comparisons – when the University (CUD) and
CUB organizational charts were compared with job descriptions assessed job-for-job, the
employee counts were considerably different than those reported in the FPI.
2. Custodial GSF Maintained – for the purposes of the FPI six of the eight peer institutions reported
Custodial GSF Maintained. Of those four reported Custodial GSF equal to Total GSF. Typically,
Cleanable GSF is approximately sixty to seventy percent of Total GSF. For consistency Total GSF is
used in this report for Cleanable GSF.
Chief Fac
Officer
FTE
Assoc/
Assist Dir
FTE
Bus/ Budget
Mgr FTE
Human
Resource
s Mgr FTE
Training
Officer
FTE
Computr
Program/
Analyst
FTE
Othr
Admn
Mgrs FTE
Secretary
/ Clerical
FTE
Othr
Admn
FTE Total
Univ Colorado
/Boulder 1.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 10.0 3.0 36.0 70.0
Univ Colorado
/Denver 1.0 5.6 3.5 2.0 1.9 3.8 8.0 25.8
2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012
ECUHS 1,339,863 ECUHS 1,339,863
MCG 2,164,779 2,164,779 2,411,715 MCG 2,164,779 2,164,779 2,411,715
CUB 4,501,012 4,652,633 4,655,651 CUB 4,642,302 4,652,633 4,669,359
CUD 2,371,318 2,555,171 CUD 4,362,540 4,302,698
UMB 3,639,060 3,556,311 3,597,834 UMB 3,639,060 3,977,394 3,597,834
WUSOM 4,529,256 WUSOM 6,589,727
Custodial GSF Total GSF
33
3. Organizational Differences between University Budget and APPA Reporting – APPA definitions,
when applied to the University work force, do not mesh exactly with the University’s budget
groupings. This table divides the CU Denver Staff into the APPA Categories and Job Types.
1 Building Maintenance FTEs were adjusted down by eight and one-half-FTEs to account for charge-back work. 2 Construction/Renovation FTE and budget were removed from the aggregate totals to enable CUD to treat Construction A&E as an auxiliary like the Peer Group. 3 The twelve Facilities Management FTEs with no APPA FPI Category is comprised of 10 FTEs from the Mail Center and 2 FTEs from the Bookstore.
Sum of FTEFPI
FTE
FPI
Contract
APPA Category APPA Job Type Total
AC / Refrigeration Technician 8.0
Chief/Superintendent of Maintenance 4.5
Electrician 12.0
General Zone Maintenance Worker 41.0
Laborer/Trades Worker 6.4
Locksmith 2.0
Plumber/Pipefitter 11.0
Shop Supervisor/Foreperson 4.0
Storekeeper/Expediter 4.0
Building Maintenance Total 92.9 85.5 0.0Other Construction/Renovation/A&E Positions 7.1
Project Coordinator/Manager 9.0
Facility Planner 0.8
Construction/Renovation Total 16.9 0.0 0.0
Custodial Custodial Supervisor/Foreperson 5.0
Custodian/Housekeeper 4.0
Custodial Superintendent/Manager 1.0
Custodial Total 10.0 10.0 125.0
Energy/Utilities Energy Engineer/Manager 0.9
HVAC Controls Technician 3.0
Energy/Utilities Total 3.9 3.1 0.0
Associate/Assistant Director 5.6
Business/Budget Manager 3.5
Chief Facilities Officer 1.0
Computer Programmer/Analyst 3.8
Human Resource Manager 2.0
Secretarial/Clerical 8.0
Training Officer 1.9Facilities Administration Total 25.8 25.8 0.0
Grounds Grounds Supervisor/Foreperson 1.0
Groundskeeper 9.0
Grounds Total 10.0 10.0 0.0
(No APPA Category) (No APPA Job Type) 11.5 0.0
Grand Total 170.9 134.4 125.0
Building
Maintenance
Construction/
Renovation
Facilities
Administration
1
2
3
