Beyond the BCA Turning the Building Condition Assessment

Into a Capital Project Program

ROBB DODS CFM Presented at IFMA World Workplace, October, 2008

INTRODUCTION

Why do a building condition assessment at all? It is a lot of work, sometimes a lot of cost; and does it really provide you with much more than a Reserve Fund Study to plan your financial requirements for capital improvements? The purpose of this presentation is to share the story of the development of the Region of Peel’s capital building renewal program, which is based on the knowledge gained from detailed building condition assessment reporting.

When the Region of Peel first contracted for assessments to be performed an attempt was made to apply the report information directly to the capital planning. The lessons learned resulted in an evolutionary development of procedures now followed by the Region to perform building condition assessments in such a way as to provide practical capital project information in addition to accurate financial budgeting.

This presentation will explain how the Region interprets a Building Condition Assessment (BCA) and what the Region includes and does not include in the actual auditing exercise to assess the properties.

It will include a discussion on how the Region’s annual capital projects became dependant on the quality of information provided by the BCA program; how the detailed information is provided to attain this goal; and the manner in which external vendors are to provide the level and quality of detail necessary to the success of the program.

This presentation will conclude with a look at the future of the continued interactions and knowledge sharing at the Region among the various related business units and client departments.

The Regional Municipality of Peel is a second-tier municipal government, servicing the cities of Mississauga and Brampton and the Town of Caledon in Ontario Canada. Some of the main services it is responsible for are:

• Infrastructure (regional roads, water/waste water management, recycling/waste management) • Social Housing and Services • Public Health • Long Term Care facilities • Children’s Services and Child Care Centres.

ASSET PRESERVATION

The Asset Preservation section (APS) essentially represents corporate ownership. The team provides the knowledge to interpret what is found through inspections, project closeout reviews, and the integration of interactions between all the parties involved. The team works closely with the project managers, the property managers, and energy management, and identifies opportunities for introducing new energy efficient technologies related to the timing of the replacement of building assets.

There are numerous related services APS provides including identification of performance standards, project management of special projects, mould and other hazardous materials investigations, and capital project and space planning drawing reconciliations to the master drawing library. The Region utilizes an electronic information management system referred to as EIM, in which APS has created a Property

Information Library to publish all building information accessible by our internal clients, and the team develops and manages a capital tracking and CMMS database.

BCA 101: What is a Building Condition Assessment?

The first thing is to identify what assets are to be inspected. There are assets to which you may not want to apply this type of assessment because annual or regular inspections by property managers will identify any issues. Existing conditions are documented; repairs and replacement requirements are captured. The requirements are prioritized into the specific years for building the capital budgets; and any decisions where work is deferred must be captured into the correct year. (A decision may be made not to put a repair into next year’s budget, but you do not want to lose sight that it is something that does need to be attended to sooner than later).

The information must be updated; mainly the adjudged age of an asset and any change to the assumptions in its lifecycle. Adjudged age is the determination of the condition of the asset related to its lifecycle. If an asset’s life expectation is 20 years, its performance could be better than expected or worse. Although it may only be 10 years old, for example, it may be judged to have deteriorated to the equivalent of being 15 years old and should be replaced within five years. Or, if it is performing better than expected it might be judged to be as new as five years old and should not need replacing for another 15 years, in which case the life of the asset has been extended.

The Region first performed BCA’s to determine the capital risk it was assuming when the Provincial Government downloaded social housing properties and social programs to the municipalities. From the resulting reports what was found was that a Reserve Fund Study was created, but it was very high-level. In reality, it was inadequate as a true indicator of the type of capital funding that was really required each year because it did not account for related project management and construction fees or contingencies, especially for older buildings. The Region also assumed the BCA forecast represented the actual required annual capital funding.

We were told a preventive maintenance plan was included, and just what that meant was different depending on who you talked to, including in-house staff. In reality, all that was provided was an allowance plan for funds for unspecified repairs additional to the capital replacement. This separate plan was not even included as part of the Reserve Fund Study.

While the BCA did provide some idea for what should be planned there was no practical information to identify what work was actually needed to be done. The project managers still had to re-assess the situation that the BCA said to address. Consulting fees assigned to develop a scope of work used up the capital funds that had been ear-marked to do the actual work. This was a real issue because it delayed the implementation of projects and the projects were underfunded as a result. Many times, after money was spent on this sort of investigation, it was determined that nothing actually had to be done because the BCA had allowed for a contingency allowance IF something were to need repair.

Assessments include the review of the following components:

• Major Capital items only • Exterior site elements (paving, fencing, but not landscaping) • Exterior building envelope (windows, walls, roof) • Mechanical systems (heating, cooling, exhaust) • Electrical systems (lighting, distribution, cabling) • Hazardous Materials (asbestos, lead, toxicity) • Fire and Life Safety (fire panels and alarms, security, extinguishers) • Building Cod and Legislative Compliance

• Estimate budgets for component repairs • Monitor condition of building components to update records • Validate client, property manager and program requirements as requested • Assist identifying and maintaining standards for future projects.

The Building Condition Assessors:

• Survey a facility to determine the condition of asset components • Assess architectural /structural /site assets, and electrical /mechanical equipment • Re-evaluate existing BCA surveys • Recommend remedial actions • Update the database for components repaired/replaced

o From projects o From maintenance reports

While a visual inspection by an experienced assessor is appropriate for architectural and structural components to determine if there is a condition that may require more in-depth investigation by an engineer, such is not the case for mechanical and electrical equipment. On the visual walkthroughs observations are noted about the equipment for any obvious problems, like leaking oil or water, burn marks and such, and a review of the maintenance logs is included. For a more comprehensive assessment the equipment must be opened and tested. We hire engineering vendors, through an RFP process, to manage the investigations of a more intrusive or comprehensive nature.

For both inspections and reporting the Region used to include what we now refer to as Minor Capital, but these items are inspected by property personnel anyway so time and costs were cut in avoiding duplication. The Minor Capital includes all interior aspects such as carpet, furniture, appliances, paint finishes, residential in-suite finishes, and exterior issues such as landscaping and curb-appeal aspects.

The property managers provide feedback annually on these items and their requests are included in the capital budget planning. The funding for these requirements often is provided from the capital reserves and the monies are then transferred to the property management operating accounts to be dealt with through normal procurement methods or as part of existing contracts. For the 10 year reserve planning, these aspects are noted by a single line budget item.

A preventive maintenance plan as such is not provided. The focus is on the correct timing and costs for major repairs or replacements. Preventive maintenance is dealt with in the annual operating program.

Most corporations’ Finance departments have their own reporting inflation rates and expected ROI’s, etc. It confuses the issue when a vendor provides a Reserve Fund Study that includes inflation rates. This may be a benefit for smaller building owners, but for an organization such as the Region of Peel, the numbers need to be “flat” in today’s dollars. APS refers to this as a Capital Expenditure Study, which is really a cash flow, instead of a Reserve Fund Study. The numbers are provided to Finance to input to PeopleSoft, the financial management database, to meet the corporate financial projection criteria.

Upon completion of the BCA we are able to

• Demonstrate scheduled repairs/replacements in-line with or exceeding industry standards for estimated service life

• Indicate component repair/ replacement delay without negative consequences • Compare budget with estimates after assessment • Project future expenditure needs based on our own cost data

APS maintains its own cost database. We reference industry standards provided by resources such as RS Means only when the real costs are not available because the regionalized cost differences can be significant. We provide lessons learned in pricing and update our database from the actual project tender submissions. This results in pretty accurate budgeting with real life contingency built in. It also includes related costs associated with the actual installation.

Typical BCAs provide for replacing an asset with the same asset. They tend to include a cost for the specific component only. What we now insist on is to include the fact that some components cannot be replaced in isolation. There are connected parts of the system that require updating when components are replaced. For example, if a pump is being replaced you also often need to include the costs for changes to connecting pipes, valves, etc. This is often overlooked in a typical BCA, or the timing of the costs for the extra pieces being changed are based on their lifecycle which might be different than the main pump component, except they all need changing at the same time.

Our cost data is even becoming more building-specific. There are attributes about a building that affect price, such as the type of program by the tenant – for a Child Care Centre there is always a requirement for security and after-hours or weekend work. Other things that add costs include the particular aspects about replacing an asset, for instance the cost for additional work required to remove the old asset. An example is the removal of a boiler from the ground floor which is different than from a penthouse; is there demolition involved that must be included.

These associated costs are part of the replacement of the equipment, but are most often missed. We are associating these hidden costs uniquely in the database with all our buildings.

The following examples are not an “apples-to-apples” comparison of the change in BCA reporting, but these are actual descriptions from reports and represent the change in reporting expectations. The first example is typical of the type of BCA reporting the Region had received in the past. There is not much in the description about what the issue was and there is just an allowance for repairs.

Example: Brick Masonry Wall System

Description:

• The exterior walls of the building are generally covered by a brick veneer wall assembly. There are a few localized areas of deteriorated mortar joints in the brickwork.

Recommendation for $20,000:

• The back-up walls should last the life of the building as long as repair work is carried out on the exterior cladding components, as required. An allocation is included in the summary spreadsheet for repairs to brick work.

This is the level of detail we expect now:

Description

The walls are 8” masonry with 4” face brick and 4” concrete back-up with drywall on interior. No details of construction available.

Efflorescence stains observed where ice-damming is present. Also observed below downspout connections beside main and rear entrance.

Spalling at top of firewalls and above exit door of south wing. Deterioration at bottom of wall and columns at front entrance from snow and salt exposure…

etc

Recommendations for $60,000

Address ice-damming and improve ground slope to keep water and snow from accumulating…

Verify if water has damaged brick from running between cladding and brick at fire walls Patch cracks and monitor to determine if related to settlement of building. If so, further

investigation will be required by structural specialist… Schedule work within next two years Replace spalled brick immediately for safety…

Each year, as APS reviews the upcoming work, if there is not enough detail to give direction to develop a scope of work then the item is not included in the initial budget work list. If time allows, it may be investigated further to determine a proper description of requirements.

The Region has changed its BCA program so that it can provide a prioritized Capital Risk Assessment. We have the ability to manage the risk logically and to make intelligent, qualified decisions for the selection of capital work and the prioritization for the use of limited funds.

SCORING THE ASSET

The assets in the database are assigned a score based on three criteria. The first two are risk assessments and have a fixed value assigned to the asset: Consequences of Failure and Consequences of Delaying the Repair.

The third is the Condition score of the asset. We use terms for the Condition scores that can be easily understood in terms of performance standards when assigned to the assets; Good, Acceptable, Fair, Poor, and Failed. (For the asset scores and descriptions refer to Appendix 1 - Asset Repair Criteria Scoring System).

While the capital work list is determined by a team effort, if the list is needed to be reduced for budget purposes, the scoring provides the prioritization of the work. Except in the cases of building code, legislation compliance, or life safety issues which are always a priority, the final decision as to what goes into the annual capital budget is made by property management.

All the assets in the Regional buildings have been assigned a code from the industry standard coding system ASTM Uniformat II (visit www.uniformat.com). We applied ownership of concern to either the property management operations of the building or the capital requirements and safety of the building. Then it was identified as to whether the asset was critical or non-critical to the owners of the concern. (Refer to example from the list of codes and assigned risk scores in Appendix 2 - Uniformat II Code and Risk Score Examples).

LESSONS LEARNED

By studying what was happening when the original Building Condition Assessments were applied to define capital projects, we have learned what was needed to correct the assumptions and put the capital renewal program back on track. We incorporated this knowledge back into the reporting and procedures and developed a database tool that provided accurate reporting, aligned with the financial coding.

Initiated in 1999 the first BCA’s were performed in 2000 and 2001. The existing Reserve Fund Study was updated from these reports and the assumption was made that they could provide what was needed to create the capital plans for initiating projects.

In 2004, APS began to re-assess the properties that had been included in the original BCA audit. At the same time we were investigating the problems that were becoming obvious with the capital project planning. What we found was that the implementation of capital projects by 2003 had bogged down because there was not enough information to work with. The reports were not providing enough description and detail to understand exactly what work was being recommended. As a result, project budget money and additional time were required by the project managers to hire architectural and engineering consultants to investigate what the BCA’s were really recommending and to determine the scopes of work in order to move projects ahead. The associated costs were not part of the Reserve Fund projections or included in the approved annual capital budget.

The BCA Reserve Fund Study was used to establish the update of the 10 Year reserve financial plan. Capital funds were requested from the reserves each year based on the 10 year plan, but the budgeted money was not being spent due to the delays, lack of information, and a misunderstanding of using the BCA at “face value” to determine the budget. The property managers did not understand the details of the BCA information and could not refute what was proposed; so they lamented, “If the BCA says it is needed, it must be needed.”

The CMMS database was enhanced to capture BCA condition observations; new assessments began to include terms of reference to provide guidance to the project managers for scopes of work. By 2006 the new scoring system was applied to the existing “older” BCAs in the database. This was accomplished by the analyst team reviewing all the older reports and interpreting a score to reflect the condition value at the time of the original assessment. This provided a benchmark in the database to measure against a new assessment. 2007 was the first year we were able to report on the whole portfolio using the priority coding system.

As APS moves forward with the re-assessments all the condition scores shall match our judgment of the condition of the assets. However, even the first 2004 re-assessments are already four years old, meaning currently the information from those re-assessments is already becoming stale.

CAPITAL RISK ASSESSMENT

The program and procedures now in place represent an evolution of the whole BCA concept and process. The program should be called a Capital Risk Assessment or CRA rather than BCA.

The results of assessments now provide actionable descriptions for capital renewal projects. One major change is the requirement that the vendors (and our own staff) enter the results of their assessments into our database. The recommended work must include accurate cost allowances, and must have exact quantities and locations specified, not just a percentage allowance.

Ultimately, costs and time that were being spent on project evaluation are being reduced and capital work can be described or deferred logically, based on the coding and scoring system. The real key to the whole process is planned communication, involving as many resources as possible who have knowledge about the assets and valuable input to be shared.

From the lessons learned it was determined that in-house staff could provide accurate assessments on architectural and structural issues, but help was needed for assessments of mechanical and electrical equipment.

We created new BCA reporting requirements for vendors to provide the level of detail that is needed, and to report their findings and data in a spreadsheet rather than in a written report, so that the results can be uploaded to the database directly, from which customized reports are run.

After a few trial and error attempts to educate the service providers, in 2006 a vendor was contracted that worked closely with us to report on the level of detail needed. They performed comprehensive (intrusive) assessments on approximately one third of the property portfolio for mechanical and electrical equipment. Until mid-2008 only about one third of the portfolio had this in-depth information for M&E. APS has two thirds of the portfolio assessed now for architectural and structural, and an assessment “blitz” is being performed to catch up and complete the review of the whole portfolio in 2008/2009. Further fine-tuning of the scope requirements for the M&E inspections were included in a new RFP this year for services in 2008 and beyond.

We have been increasingly providing better descriptions of project scope requirements for the project teams enabling them to proceed confidently. We avoid putting anything ambiguous into the capital plan, and we provide clear details so the project managers have the information with which to proceed.

SCHEDULES – Assessments and Capital Budgets

The Region has a multi-year schedule developed for the on-going assessments / re-assessments of its properties. APS currently has two cyclical annual programs. In addition to the annual inspections there is a cycle of review to prepare for the capital budgets. (An example of the BCA long-term planning schedule is shown in Appendix 3 – BCA Schedule [Partial]).

For instance, APS began the review of the 2009 capital budget requirements in the fall of 2007 to provide an initial work list from the BCA’s by January 2008. The final review by property management was completed the end of April 2008 for a draft submission to Finance in May. Final submission for capital requirements is the end of June 2008 for the budget year 2009. Finance reviews the projection of the 10 Year Plan submissions in May, so if there are needed changes there is still time to tweak the submission before the end of June.

A major evolution anticipated is that by the end of 2009 we will have the database being updated on an on-going basis with new re-assessment information such that reports can be run on-demand throughout the year, providing accurate information. No longer will there need to be the same sort of focus on the budget start-up preparation activities in the fall each year because the regular assessment program will be updated continually.

For the annual development of the capital program the APS team reviews the next three years of BCA information and qualifies the priorities to be recommended. We provide that information to the property management and project management teams for review early in the year (January). We involve the energy management team in the review to identify opportunities for investigation of special projects for the greening of our existing buildings.

In the spring these teams meet to review the recommended lists of work, which include their clients’ various program requirements. Then a draft of the 10 year projection is updated from which property management makes its recommendations on any changes to the 10 year financial projections.

There are a variety of input sources, which include property management, maintenance management, project management, program clients, the BCA data, and energy management. APS investigates issues that are unclear or may require an in-depth investigation in the budget year to determine the scope of work for the following year(s). We review the work that is requested in addition to the BCA recommendations and reconcile any duplications; then update the 10 year projections with the work that is identified to be deferred or cancelled.

The outputs include the all-important capital list of work to be budgeted, which is assigned to either the project management team or to the property managers to be implemented as opportunities arise in their

scheduling, such as at tenant turnover for the residential properties. In the current situation some client program areas own their capital budgets. From the 10 year projection the clients or owners of the budgets also forward any updates to the 10 year Reserve Fund plan to Finance.

The BCA projection is a risk assessment and includes low risk items that may or may not make the implementation list. For the residential properties we have found that there is approximately a 25% delta from what the overall BCA projection recommends and the final approved capital budget.

We are learning how to adjust our view of the asset repair and replacement requirements related to making a difference for energy use in the buildings and creating sustainability options. We want to adjust the projections to provide the grouping of asset repair or replacement requirements with a holistic approach. To affect energy usage in the existing buildings we need to replace or update assets in a combined effort, such as the roof, envelope and fenestration at approximately the same time. This requires an in-depth analysis of the lifecycle of the assets to determine the optimal timing.

Once property management has approved the work list the project management team bundles the work into projects. If possible, project management or even the APS team will try to do some early preliminary project design work so that projects are ready for tender when the budgets are approved. The timing delay of the procurement procedures can be an issue, especially for initiating weather-sensitive work.

TIMETABLES – Managing the Budget Development

Our goal is to smooth, as much as possible, the 10 year projection to provide consistent budget requirements from year to year. This can be achieved by massaging the priorities of the assessment recommendations. With a first run through the priority items over the 10 year projection we were able to level this at $20M for the residential portfolio. This still requires further analysis, but the typical residential budget decision on capital work is roughly $15M per year, including $5M in minor capital and emergency contingency. This suggests that there is a ratio of 3:4 of planned capital work verses BCA projections with this portfolio.

Our current program is based upon performing BCA re-assessments every three years; one third of the portfolio every year. There is a lag between when the information is updated in the database to when it is available for the next capital budget exercise. We have to live with the older report information through a cycle of four years because each year we are still collecting new information and only part of that information may be available at the time of the budget review. The financial information for the first part of the previous year is not available until the second half of the year due to the time it takes to review and qualify the data. Which means that only the first half of the previous year is included in the details provided for review in January in the schedule discussed earlier.

Each budget year lags behind the inspections. For example in 2010 the assessment information for one third of the portfolio will be based on what was captured the end of 2006. Even a three year assessment program results in four year old information being used, which is pretty stale to trust for some types of assets, especially if you have a situation of trying to measure the rate of deterioration of an asset or a class of assets across the portfolio.

The ultimate goal of all this work is the creation of capital projects for priority work. With all the information prequalified, scopes of work provided, and all the discussions resulting in clear direction, the capital projects can be confidently created. After everyone’s input, the database produces work orders based on all the approved work. The project management team then bundles the work orders into work packages for tendering. These packages may be based on “like” work, such as a paving contract for multiple sites, or they may be based on multiple work requirements at one site to avoid constructor issues, or a combination of sites of multiple types of work with a focus on particular commodities.

BEYOND THE BCA – Bringing It All Together

As we learned what was and was not working with the BCA and capital project development process, we also began to see how the lifecycle of a building needed to be viewed in a holistic approach. Our BCA’s are based on the review of existing buildings. The problems we encounter are often a result of the original design of the building, or in a change of use from its original design.

Often the reason for many problems found has been the lack of recognition in the need for a new design to include the lessons learned from the operational management of a building; e.g. what materials best support the use of the facility, what lasts the longest, what materials do not last according to industry expectations because of the tenant abuse of the building environment.

There are many teams involved at the Region with activities that affect our building assets. The property managers deal with daily operations and maintenance contracts; the preventive maintenance section provides scheduled services; APS investigates and reports on the condition of the assets; the project management teams implement the planned and unplanned projects that affect the assets and build new facilities that add new assets to the portfolio; the energy management team is continually exploring opportunities to find the best energy solutions; and the myriad maintenance vendors provide input to the management of the assets.

Each team performs many activities each year that focus on the buildings; some are unique to their own procedures and some are related to activities of the other groups. What is needed is to become better at integrating their efforts in order to avoid duplication and to provide each other with timely information so that every year all of the programs are similarly updated.

An example of a common purpose is the quest for energy efficient and sustainable products, tools and methodologies. We have had recent discussions to establish an on-going sustainability committee for the purpose of aligning such activities. The first step is the annual BCA review process that is bringing all the parties together for the common discussions about the properties.

The average age of the Region’s residential portfolio is 22 years; the average age of the commercial portfolio is 27 years, (not including the Heritage Complex with buildings well over 100 years old). The Region must have a long-term view for managing existing buildings. We need the synergistic integration of our activities throughout the life cycle of a building, especially with a large portfolio of existing buildings.

In the first five years of occupancy of a new building there is little concern from a capital renewal point of view; it is the break-in period for operations and the tenants to get used to the new facility. As the building ages, capital repair requirements increase and more of the teams’ activities interact in meeting the aging needs of the building.

There comes a point in the lifecycle of the building when the major assets, meaning the assets most costly to replace, reach the end of their effective life. Typically, it is when buildings reach 20 to 25 years that they begin to really show their age; it is time to replace the roofing if not already done, major equipment may be breaking down or requiring increasingly expensive repairs, or the parts are no longer available even if the equipment is still operating effectively. At this point we start seeing the spikes in the capital plans.

We need to have the input from the teams that have the experience of managing buildings through long periods of their lifecycle included at the design stage of a new building. The owners will benefit from all the experienced insight being built into the building that then becomes an existing asset to manage for the long term.

APS has studied the situation and determined our need for a cradle-to-grave approach when designing or purchasing buildings. With sustainability the issue of the day, we hope to evolve our practices to become more cradle to cradle. The approach would include ensuring that a new building is totally commissioned; meaning all information about the construction that will affect operations is captured, in addition to the commissioning of the equipment and systems. This would include an operations management plan designed by a consultant that is responsible for pulling all the information together during the construction and commissioning of the building. This would ensure that the warranty plan is in place with a maintenance contract plan waiting to kick-in when the warranties run out. This would include consultation and involvement of the operations staff and the capital asset management staff in the design process of the building prior to it going out to tender for construction.

A key strategy that should be seriously considered, and might involve adjustment to the Region’s purchasing guidelines, is to have the vendors that supplied and installed the equipment then continue to be responsible for the operations and maintenance of the equipment. This would cover the break-in period beyond the warranty dates, based on a performance specification. This essentially would have the effect of extending the warranties and would ensure top quality installation work if the vendors are responsible for the continued performance of their original work. It might mean more expensive first-time maintenance contracts, but the long term reduction in maintenance costs would more than off-set the up-front costs. (Some of these proponents of this asset management protection program have already been introduced to the current Region of Peel headquarters expansion project; the occupancy is planned for fall of 2008).

Because the Region does not buy or build properties for short-term investment, we are married to these assets essentially for life. The long-term operational and capital repair costs over the life of a building are far higher than the initial cost of construction. In recent years there have been more statistics reporting that 75% to 85% of the total cost to build and operate a building over its life is in the operating and maintenance costs. That suggests that, while all the focus tends to be on the budget of constructing a building, that budget may only represent 15% of the total cost to own and operate that building. If we want to see the major portion of these costs lowered then we need a total lifecycle costing methodology applied to creating the budget for constructing new buildings.

It is the long-term view where we will save money by designing smart up front. We need to move to having new construction projects approved on lifecycle costing based on the total life ownership to reflect the benefits of implementing quality design to save future major operating and capital renewal costs.

CONCLUSION

It only makes sense that when the effort is put into assessing the condition of your building assets this should result in data that can easily be transformed into creating your capital program.

The ability to accurately update your Reserve Fund requirements and your forecasting for capital work is invaluable if it is tied directly into both the assessment program and the work order management. Capturing the history of asset repairs, feeding this information to your assessment program, and linking this information to the future capital plan will save investigative time and money.

The Region of Peel has learned, through the process of turning its building condition assessments directly into capital projects, that there is a real requirement for a centralized approach to the management of its built environment. In addition to the major reorganization the Region recently experienced, further adjustments to organizational reporting structures and the reporting of the assets by various program budget “owners” are required to ensure synergy takes place between the teams involved in the management of assets.

Facilities Knowledge & Technical ServicesFacilities Management Division

Employee and Business Services

The Region is currently reviewing its asset management strategy to develop consensus for the right support and ownership of its assets. We have already identified gaps and duplication in project management activities, as well as in the capital and budget planning.

As of December 2007 the BCA program was not yet in place for all the departments and services, such as the public works facilities, and only upon request for the Long Term Care facilities. The asset assessment program, presented here, has now been accepted by the Corporate Asset Management strategic project as the foundation for the Region’s future capital planning requirements for all its owned properties in 2008 and going forward.

The BCA program will be applied consistently across the whole portfolio of Region-owned properties. This will result in accurate budgeting and the ability to smooth the reserve fund requirements. The strategic decision-making will be based on incorporating the information. Cost savings are already being realized and this will continue to improve, providing significant savings over the lifetime of the existing buildings. While aligning the related asset management teams, considering this a Capital Risk Assessment program will imprint the right focus. It will create the opportunities for greening the existing buildings and for developing sustainable practices. While it is easier to create such opportunities in the design of a new building, let’s face it, most facilities departments are dealing with existing buildings. Having such an integrated assessment program in place will ensure the opportunities are created.

Our programs support the Region of Peel’s Common Purpose strategy. By ensuring transparency in methodologies dealing with the true costs in the management of our assets we promote Trust and

Confidence with the Citizens of Peel. It is our purpose to be continually learning when, where, why and how to keep our costs down by being pro-active in all aspects of our asset management operations. Assuring our building condition assessments provide for accurate capital renewal project management information is a key step forward in supporting the Common Purpose Strategy.

Facilities Knowledge & Technical ServicesFacilities Management Division

Employee and Business Services

For more information on the Region of Peel’s building condition assessment or capital project development programs please contact:

Robb.Dods@peelregion.ca Ph: 905-791-7800 x7682

Manager, Asset Preservation Facilities Management Employee and Business Services Region of Peel Brampton, Ontario, Canada

APPENDIX 1 BUILDING ASSESSMENT

REPAIR CRITERIA SCORING SYSTEM

The deficiencies identified during the site inspections are to be rated under the following scoring system to establish the priority of the required corrective action. A criteria score will be assessed for each of the three criteria, and the overall priority score will be obtained by adding the three criteria scores for each deficiency. Work priorities will then be determined by comparing the magnitudes of the priority scores for deficiencies within a building, and for all deficiencies at all buildings. Each deficiency report will indicate the score for each of the three criteria:

1. CONDITION OF COMPONENT:

Definition of Rating Criteria Score Good – No action required. No further criteria assessment provided. (No Repair Required For Next 3 Years, re-assess in 3rd Year)

0

Acceptable – Obvious but minor aesthetic, functional or operational deficiency. (Repair in 2-3 Years)

15

Fair – Requiring frequent maintenance, adjustment, reset, etc. Serious aesthetic annoyance. (Repair in 1-2 Years)

25

Neutral - No noted deficiencies. Generally in acceptable condition but is highlighted as an on-going annual expenditure.

26*

Poor – Functioning unreliably, but imminent failure expected, requires major operator intervention. (Repair at least next year)

35

Failed – System or component non-functional or missing. (Repair immediately)

50

* Neutral - used for assets that continue to appear in the review requiring annual capital funding

2. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE (risk):

Definition of Rating Criteria Score None – Does not impact function or use of building. 0 Acceptable - Local Inconvenience. Failure will affect condition or function of other components, or function or use of building within the near vicinity of the component.

5

Unacceptable - Wide-spread Inconvenience. Failure will affect condition or function or other components, or function and use or significant portions of non-critical building areas.

15

Urgent - Critical Area or Life Safety Risk. Failure will affect life safety, violation of applicable code and regulations, and/or major disruption of business or critical building areas.

25

3. CONSEQUENCES OF REPAIR DELAY (risk):

Definition of Rating Criteria Score None. Delay in repairing deficiency will not cause further failures or deterioration.

0

Acceptable - Delay in repair deficiency will result in reduction of management efficiencies.

10

Unacceptable - Delay in repairing deficiency will cause deterioration that is proportional with the length of the delays and/or reduction of aesthetic appeal

15

Urgent - Delay in repairing deficiency will cause major deterioration or failure in associated or nearby systems

25

CRITICAL RANGE This table indicates that the Condition Score of 35 or higher requires consideration for immediate repair in the current year or to be planned for the next budget year. This would then be weighed against the Consequence of Failure (unacceptable score of 15 or above) and the Consequence of Delay (unacceptable score of 15 or above) together. The priority scores are highlighted. An exception might be the score of 55* where the situation, although is listed as fair for the condition and acceptable for the local inconvenience, could still have a detrimental effect on a nearby system(s) that could grow into a larger problem if left unattended for too long or an inconvenient aesthetic issue. It is a judgement call.

Consequence of Failure 0 5 15 25

0 0 5 15 25

10 10 15 25 35

15 15 20 30 40

Con

sequ

ence

of

Rep

air D

elay

25 25 30 40 50

15 30 50 75 25 40 60 85 30 45 65 95

Add the combined scores above to the

Condition score below for the overall

total at right > 40 55 75 100 0 15 25 35 50

Condition Score Add Condition Score (bottom range) to totals of Consequences of Failure and Delay of Repair (top and left range respectively)

APPENDIX 2

UNIFORMAT II CODE and RISK SCORE EXAMPLES

All Code List Description

Conse-quence

of Failure

Conse-quence Delay Repair

Capital Critical

Capital Non-

Critical

Opera-tions

Critical

Opera-tions Non-

Critical

D4024000 Pumping Equipment 25 25 X D4024001 Fire Pump 25 25 X D4024002 Jockey Pump 25 25 X D4025000 Standpipe / Valve / Water Supply 25 25 X

D4030000 FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALTIES - General 25 25 X

D4031000 Fire Extinguishers 25 25 X D4032000 Fire Hose Cabinets (FHC) 25 25 X D4033000 Fire Safety Plan 25 25 X D4034000 Fire Containment & Egress 25 25 X

D4090000 OTHER FIRE PROTECTION - General 25 25 X

D4092000 Foam Generating Equipment 25 25 X

D4093000 Clean Extinguishing Agent Systems 25 25 X

D4094000 Dry Chemical System 25 25 X

D4095000 Exhaust Hood & Duct Fire Protection 25 25 X

D40990000 OTHER FIRE PROTECTION - General 25 25 X

D5010000 ELECTRICAL SERVICE & DISTRIBUTION - General 25 25 X

D5011000 High Tension Services & Distribution 25 25 X

D5012000 Low Tension Services & Distribution - General 25 25 X

D5012001 Distribution Panels & Breakers 25 25 X D5012002 Transformers 25 25 X

D5020000 LIGHTING AND BRANCH WIRING - General 15 10 X

D5021000 Lighting & BW - Building Interior - General 5 10 X

D5021001 Lighting & BW - Common Area 5 10 X D5021002 Lighting & BW - Suite Fixtures 5 10 X

D5021003 Lighting & BW - Parking Garage - Interior 5 10 X

D5021004 Lighting & BW - Exit Lighting 5 10 X

D5022000 Lighting & BW - Building Exterior - General 15 10 X

APPENDIX 3 BCA SCHEDULE (Partial)

BCA Types:

A&E: Architectural and Structural Building Condition Assessment

A&E+M&E: Architectural, Structural, Mechanical and Electrical

M&E: Mechanical and Electrical Department Property 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Corporate Headquarters 15,000 18,000 Corporate Peel Expansion 20,000 ETPS TransHelp Social Services 4,000 10,000 6,000 Health Ambulance Operational Headquarters 7,500 3,000 4,500 Health Ambulance Station No. 01 - Tedlo 7,500 3,000 4,500 Health Ambulance Station No. 02 - Kennedy 7,500 3,000 4,500 Health Ambulance Station No. 03 - Clarkson 7,500 3,000 4,500 Health Ambulance Station No. 05/06 - Kitimat 7,500 3,000 4,500 Health Ambulance Station No. 06 - Bramalea 3,000 7,500 Health Ambulance Station No. 07 - Hale 7,500 3,000 4,500

Health Ambulance Station No. 08 - Heart Lake 7,500 3,000 4,500

Health Ambulance Station No. 09 - Malton 7,500 3,000 4,500 Health Ambulance Storage Facility 7,500 3,000 4,500 Health Malton Village LTC 20,000 7,000 13,000 Health Peel Manor LTC 20,000 50,000 Health Sheridan Village LTC 20,000 7,000 Health Tall Pine LTC 20,000 7,000 13,000Health Vera M. Davis LTC 15,000 35,000 Heritage Art Gallery 5,000 2,000 3,000 Heritage Courthouse 5,000 2,000 3,000 Heritage Housing Peel Living Offices 5,000 2,000 3,000 Heritage Museum 5,000 2,000 3,000 Human Services Brampton West CCC 3,000 7,500 Human Services Cawthra Shelters 7,500 3,000 4,500 Human Services Chinguacousy CCC 3,000 7,500 Human Services Collegeside CCC 7,500 3,000 7,500 Human Services Cooksville CCC 7,500 3,000 7,500 Human Services Ernest Majury CCC 3,000 7,500 Human Services Greenbriar CCC 3,000 7,500

Note: Numerical figures indicate budget costs for assessments of each property.