HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESPONSE - RFP - P1154 BUILDING CONDITION AUDITREQUEST FOR PROPOSAL P1154
Fc
11/13/2008
Section 2 Execution Plan
2. Execution Plan
Architecture Plus has committed staff with significant audit experience to this project. Jim Cox, Senior
Principal of Architecture Plus will be the project principal/manager for this project. The Architecture Plus
audit team is available to start this project immediately. Option i, NASA DM Method or Option 2, APPA
Method and the optional items can be completed well within Fort Collins' completion date of May 1, 2009.
Four Weeks Prior
Approximately four weeks prior to the visit, the assessment team leader, Jim Cox, as well as the other team
members will make contact with the City of Fort Collins' project manager, Tracy Ochsner. During this initial
meeting, Jim will clearly articulate assessment support requirements, including it" x 17' site and floor plans,
escorts, building access, building contact, special access, alarms, keys or cards, roof access, hours of operation,
or other needs.
The Morning of the Assessment
On the first morning of the assessment, the assessment team members, the appropriate maintenance staff and
other staff interested in the assessment, schedule a short in -brief. The in -brief will include introductions, an
overview of the project, and significant current events concerning facilities by the staff. Mr. Cox will introduce
to the assessment team the City's architect responsible for general structural, roofing, and site system
evaluations; and the engineers responsible for HVAC, plumbing evaluations, and electrical system evaluations.
He will then describe the assessment process and intended work plans for the assessment. The assessment
team and the client's staff should agree on requirements for access, escorts, schedules and receipt and review
of any pertinent information from the client to assist in the assessment.
Gathering the Data
Architecture Plus likes to propose daily communication with the City's staff during the conduct of the survey
to maintain an open communication process. After all, your staff is most familiar with your buildings and has
the best perspective in maintenance and repair as well as operational issues. Your staff can clarify questions,
provide input as to equipment operating and maintenance histories, and discuss suspected, non -observable
problems with hidden systems and/or components. Before each walk through, the maintenance staff is
encouraged to provide short, notional facility history information for all building systems and, in particular, for
the HVAC, electrical, plumbing, conveying systems for each facility.
Option t, NASA DM Method
If the assessment team is using assessment Option i, NASA
DM Method, the preferred method for gathering data
during the assessment is by using personal digital assistants
(PDA's) with a check sheet. The desktop software used by
the assessment team allows the PDA software to
communicate with the desktop or laptop computer
software. The PDA database software provides a method
of electronically capturing assessment ratings and
comments for the nine systems that comprise each
building/facility. The PDA database can also capture
comments and identify pictures. Means, with appropriate
markups is used to provide cost estimates. After returning
from each assessment session in the field, each PDA is
synchronized with the team leader's laptop/desktop to
backup the data that was just collected.
3
2. Execution Plan
Option 2, APPA Method
If the assessment team is using assessment
Option 2, APPA Method, the preferred
method for gathering data during the
assessment is by using a one -page form for
each deficiency with a checklist. The data
from that form and photos of each deficiency
is input into a relational database. Means, with
appropriate markups is used to provide cost
estimates. After returning from each
assessment session in the field, the forms are
copied are and distributed to the team leader.
Regular Status Reporting
Along the way, regular status reporting
identifies the current status of work steps in
terms of planned, actual, and predicted
resource utilization. On -going communication
with the City's staff will define:
• Project progress
• Work expected to be performed
• Need for guidance from City's staff
• Any difficulties in logistics or execution
We have in place an advanced problem
identification process that allows quick
reaction and response to potential project
complications that may arise.
Example of APlus' custom data collection form
Conclusion of the Field Survey
Upon conclusion of the field survey, an exit debriefing will be held with the City's personnel to present key
findings of the survey process, provide an overview of overall facility condition, discuss any significant
problems which should be immediately addressed, and answer any final questions.
Cost Estimates and Data Entry
The next part of the process consists of developing cost estimates for each deficiency and preparing the
deficiency forms for data entry into the database management system.
Preparation of the Final Deficiency Reports
The last step in the process involves the preparation of the final deficiency reports. Once the data has been
uploaded into the computer, the client can review and download information from the database on
Architecture Plus' web site.
2. Execution Plan
The client can easily update the data generated by the audit, including the ability to add and/or delete
deficiencies, modify the inflation rate, generate into an Excel spreadsheet, etc. Often the client will use the
deficiency records to produce work orders.
The audit report can remain on Architecture Plus' web site or transferred to the client's web site. The layout to
access the database on the computer is extremely intuitive and user friendly. If requested, Architecture Plus
will provide written instructions and/or on -site training on how to use the web site to assemble information
from and update the database.
We cannot stress enough that we plan to work closely with the'City's staff throughout the
entire process from beginning to end to insure the final product will reflect realistic'
expectations and recommendations that have`a strong chance of implementation.
E
Section 3 Additional Issues
None
Section 4 Technical Approach
4. Technical Approach
Our specialized focus allows us to develop and implement a variety of tools and methodologies in
support of our project work. All of our tools and methodologies have been developed to allow the
professional the widest freedom of analysis within broad guidance frameworks. The end result is
consistency of approach among project team members regardless of the type of project focus.
A
NASA DM Survey Methodology
The NASA Method is based on an assessment of nine systems for each facility. From an assessment of
other deferred maintenance estimating methods that use building systems and the American Society
for Testing of Materials (ASTM) UNIFORMAT II Classification of Building Elements, the following nine
systems were selected:
• Structure: foundations, superstructure, slabs and floors, and pavements adjacent to and
constructed as part of the facility (i.e sidewalks, parking lots and access roads).
• Roofing: Roof coverings, roof openings, gutters and flashing
• Exterior: Exterior coatings and sealants, windows and doors.
• Interior Finishes: All interior finishes on walls, ceilings, floors and stairways, as well as interior
doors
• HVAC Systems: Heat, ventilating and air conditioning systems including controls
• Electrical Systems: Electrical service and distribution within five feet of the facility, lighting,
communications systems, security and fire protection wiring and controls
• Plumbing systems: Water, sewer and fire protection piping, including bathroom fixtures, and
back flow preventers
• Conveyance Systems: Elevators, escalators, hoists or other lifting mechanisms
• Support Equipment: Specialty Equipment in a limited number of facilities
NASA DM Database
The foundation for the NASA DM Method is the deferred maintenance database. Appropriate fields
from the client's Real Property Inventory (RPI), including facility number, description, CRV, capacity,
first year (essentially the year the original facility was constructed), and the Client's facility class are
imported to the Deferred Maintenance Database. Additional fields within the database include: DM
Categories, system condition ratings for nine systems, System CRV Percentages, System Condition
CRV Percentages, DM estimates per system and for the total facility, Facility Condition Indexes (FCI),
and System Condition Indexes (SCI)
Deferred Maintenance Categories
The DM Category Codes are intended to capture facilities of similar types. The intent is for the
majority of facilities in each DM Category to have similar System CRV Percentages for each of the
nine facility systems. For example, on average across a large population of facilities, most
administrative facilities will have facilities systems make up, and therefore, similar CRV percentages for
the nine systems with the DM Method.
4• Technical Approach
System CRV Percentages
The DM method prorates the total facility CRV among the nine facility systems. Some systems within a
category may contain a zero percentage (for example, pavements, only includes a percentage for
structure; no other systems are anticipated for pavement facilities).
Condition Assessments
The assessment teams assign a condition rating from 5 to 1 for each facility system based on a
systematic visual assessment and client inputs. The general definitions for each rating are:
• 5: Excellent. Only normal scheduled maintenance required
• 4: Good. Some minor repairs needed. System normally functions as intended.
• 3: Fair. More minor repairs and some infrequent larger repair required. System occasionally
unable to function as intended.
• 2: Poor. Significant repairs required. Excessive wear and tear clearly visible. Obsolete systems
not fully functional as intended. Repair parts not easily obtainable. Does not meet all codes.
• t: Bad. Major repair or replacement required to restore function. Unsafe to use.
• o: Non-existent. The zero rating identifies that this system does not exist with the facility.
While the general definitions provide an overall framework for how systems are rated, the followin7
E
4. Technical Approach
11
4. Technical Approach
System Condition CRV Percentage
A significant component of the DM estimate is the application of a system condition CRV percentage
based on the assigned condition rating for each system. The system condition CRV percentages, based
on existing engineering data, increase as the condition of the system gets lower ratings, creating a
larger DM estimate. For example, if the structure of a facility receives a 5 rating, its contribution to DM
is o-io because there is, typically, no deferred maintenance for this rating. However, if the structure
received a 3 rating, its contribution to the deferred maintenance will be io% of the CRV of the
building. The system condition percentages also vary by system. A 3 rating for the electrical system will
contribute 13%of the CRV to the DM, or the plumbing system with a 2 rating will contribute 57%of the
CRV to DM. These percentages vary by system and are provided in the table below:
NASA Method - System Condition CRV Percentages
SYSTEM
5
4
1 3
2
1
STRUC
0
1
10
25
150
EXT
0
1
10
50
101
ROOF
0
9
38
75
150
HVAC
0
2
13
63
133
ELEC
0
2
13
63
133
PLUMB
0
2
10
57
121
CONV
0
2
13
50
100
INTF
0
1
10
1 50
101
EQUIP
0
2
13
1 50
100
System Condition Index (SCI) and Facility Condition Index (FCI) Calculations
The SCI is a simple average of the system condition ratings (above) in a particular system. For example,
if there are twenty buildings, and the average system condition rating for Roofing is 3.3, then 3.3 is the
SCI. The SCI does not take into consideration the CRV of the system or the facility. It only considers
the raw system condition ratings.
The FCI is CRV normalized sum of the condition ratings for each system within each facility. In other
words, facilities or systems with a higher CRV contribute more to the overall FCI. The building FCI is a
simple calculation that weights each of the nine system condition ratings by its associated system CRV
percentage per DM category. In each system, the rating is multiplied by its system CRV percentage to
get a weighted SCI. The sum of the nine SCI's equals the facility's FCI. (see table below)
12
Table of Contents
Letter of Interest
SECTION 1...................................................Introduction I
SECTION 2.................................................. Execution Plan 6
SECTION 3..................................................Additional Issues N/A
SECTION 4.................................................Technical Approach 9
NASA Method 9
APPA Method 15
SECTION 5.................................................. Firm Qualifications 28
Org Chart 28
Responsibilities Chart 29
Resumes 30
SECTION 6..................................................Sub Consultants
33
Institute for the Built Environ.
33
Emerson Process Management
39
SECTION 7..................................................
References
41
SECTION 8.................................................
Fee Estimate
42
SECTION 9..................................................Additional
Information
48
Project Sheets
48
ASTM Designations /UNIFOPMAT II
50
Facility Profile Form
65
Survey Deficiency Form
66
ARCHITECTURE PLUS
4. Technical Approach
NASA Method - Example of Facility Condition Index Rating Calculations for an Individual
Facility
STRUC
EXT
ROOF '
'HVAC
ELEC
PLUMB
CONV
INTF
EQUIP
'FCI
Facilit
Ins
Ins
Ins
Ins
Ins
Ins
Ins
Ins
Ins
y
p
%
p
%
p
%
p
%
p
%
p
%
p
%
p
%
p
%
Facility
�esoptlon
CRV
Rat
Sys
Rat
Sys
Rat
Sys
Rat
Sys
Rat
Sys
Rat
Sys
Rat
Sys
Rat
Sys
Rat
Sys
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
$
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
CRV
924
7,781
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
General
631
4
0
4
5
4
0
3
4
3
8
4
0.01
0
0
4
4
0
0.00
3.9
Wafmww
101
Admin
12,16
5
0.1
5
0.1
3
0.0
4
0.1
4
0.1
4
0.05
5
0.0
5
0.1
0
0.00
4.5
Buildin
6,903
9
7
8
8
8
3
8
201
5,716
0.1
r071
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
Main
1
5
9
4
4
6
4
6
4
8
4
0.05
4
3
4
6
0
0.00
4.2
Library
'000
The following table is an example of an FCI for a group of buildings. The group's FCI value is a sum of
each facility's CRV normalized FCI. Each facility CRV divided by the total Center CRV. That quotient
is then multiplied by each facility's FCI producing a CRV normalized FCI. (Weighted FCI = (Facility
CRV _ Center CRV) x Facility FCI). The sum of these weighted facility FCIs provided a total Center
FCI.
River Front Com lex
Facility Description
Facility CRV $
Facility FCI
Weighted FCI
Warehouse
1,172,019
3.3
0.1
Covered Storage
102,267
5.0
0.0
Equipment Storage
Shed
92,789
5.0
0.0
General Warehouse
7,781,631
3.9
0.7
Administration Building
12,166,903
4.5
1.2
Auditodim
6,306,944
3.1
0.4
Main Library
5,716,090
4.2
0.5
Phototechnology Lab
10,960,633
3.9
1.0
Totals
44,299 276
4.0
13
4^Technical Approach
Deferred Maintenance Calculation
The facility DM estimate is determined by adding the deferred maintenance estimates of the nine
facility systems. The following table provides a sample deferred maintenance estimate for an
administrative facility with aCRYofs)omillion.
NASA Method - Example of a Deferred -Maintenance Calculation
Equipment
4• Technical Approach
wl §` V,:V 'b.r fi'�"",r�„a
APPA Survey Methodology
Architecture Plus' Facility Condition Survey is designed to systematically identify and document repair
and maintenance deficiencies at the component level in a consistent manner. The survey is also
designed to prioritize deficiencies using a scoring algorithm to derive a deficiency score for each
deficiency. This score will assist the City of Fort Collins in their allocation deliberations for future
capital outlay funding.
The survey methodology was constructed around four basic elements:
1. A set of repair and maintenance standards intended to provide a baseline against which to
conduct the condition assessment process.
2. An efficient data collection form.
3.A deficiency scoring methodology designed to allow consistent scoring of deficiencies for
prioritization decisions for funding allocation.
4.A database management system designed to generate a set of standardized detail and summary
reports from the deficiency data.
Data Collection
Two data collection forms are used for the facility condition survey. The first is a Facility Profile form
used to collect specific characteristic data that is of particular interest to the Owner regarding each
facility. The second is the Facility Condition Survey Deficiency field form for recording and scoring
identified deficiencies.
Facility Profile Form (see following page)
This form is tailored to address the specific needs of the Owner. It may contain, but is not limited to
such items as:
• Photograph of facility
• Square footage of facility
• Number of stories
• Location of utility entrances
• Site material adjacent to facility
• Repair cost of facility
• Major construction components
• Year constructed
• Year of major remodels/renovations
• Number of personnel
• Summary of overall condition assessment of facility
15
FACILITY SUMMARYDATA 12/04/02
One form maulmd for each buildfirm.
DATE:
SITE NAME: PHOTO NO:
a, Ct'!MMg9, "ziq
BLDG. NO:
SLOG. NAME:
SURVEYOR:
1. Typa of Construction:
C1
2a. Roof Type:
- 2b. Year Installed/Age:
/
Za Remaining life:
Za. Roof Type:
2b. Year Installed/Age:
/
2a. Remaining Life:
Za. Roof Type:
2b. Year Installed/Age:
/
_
2c. Remaining Life:
3a. Number Floors w/o Ssm't & Penthouse/Attic:
3b. Basement: Y or N 3c. Basement Occupied: Y or N
_
4a. Penthouse/Attic: Y or N
4b. Penthouse/Attic Occupied: Y or N__
Sa. Category/Type: Sb.1ISTA]I Activity or Primary Functional Use(s):
6. Brief Nan'itive f ALL Architectural Deficiencies:
70. Facility size in square feet:
7b. Todays cost to replace facility. $
8. GIS: (Location at front entry): S Latitude:
° Longitude: - ° I I
^
Ia. Type of HVAC system:
ib. Year Installed/Age:
/
le. Remaining Life:
10. Type of HVAC system:
1b. Year Installed/Age:
/
'1a Remaining Life:
1a. Type of HVAC system:
1b. Year Installed/Age:
/
to Remaining Life:
29. If Boiler, Location of Boiler Switches:
2b. It Boiler, Location of Circulating Pump Switches:
3a. Fire Sprinklers: Y or N 3b. If Yes, Full
or Partial 3c. Location of shut-off:
3d. Monitored by Approved Central Station: Y or N 3e. If Yes, Name/Phone #:
/
4. Standpipes: Y or N
Sa. Size of Gas Service:
Sb. Location of Main Gas Valve:
Be. Size of Water Service:
6b. Location of Main Water shut-off:
-
7a. Hazardous Materials: Y or N
7b. If Yes, Is it: Combustible Liquid &/or Flammable Liquid- &/or Other.
8. Brief Narritive of ALL Mechanical Deficiencies:
10
1 a. Size of Service:
lb. Year Installed/Age:
/
IC. Remaining Life:
1d. Location of Main Electrical Shut-off:
le. Electrical Service: Overhead or Underground
2a. Fire Alarm Panel: Y or N
Zb. It Yes, location:
3a. Fire Alarm System; Y or N
3b. If Yes, Type:
4a. Fire Control Room: Y or N
4b. If Yes, location:
Sa. Heat & Smoke Detectors: Y or N
Sb, if Yes, Full or Partial
6. Intemoarm Y or N
7. Security System: Y or N
7b. if Yes, Name/Phone 4:
8. Brief Narritive of ALL Electrical Deficiencies:
CCMK/A+ Facility Audits'Autlits Plus' 0 11/10/99
Facility Summary Page 1 of 1
4. Technical Approach
Facility Condition Survey Form (see following page)
Documentation of deficiencies is accomplished by using a field form designed by Architecture Plus
that is specifically "tuned" to meet the informational requirements and the client's budget. This form
was designed to allow for efficient and consistent collection documentation of the deficiency data, as
well as for ease of data entry into a computerized relational database (MS SQL Server 2000)
management system. The end result is a system that produces reports that addresses the "specific"
and "unique" needs of each Owner. The form is divided into five parts or blocks:
Block t
Site
This field records the site ID number
Facility
This field records the name of the facility being surveyed.
Number
This field records the number of the facility being surveyed.
Type
This field records the facility -type single character designator.
Def. No.
A sequential number is assigned (e.g. Sioo, Mioo, or ioo) to assign a unique ID tag.
Surveyor
The surveyor's initials are used to identify the surveyor doing the recording.
Date
Records the month and year of the survey.
Block 2
System
Identifies the appropriate building system where the deficiency occurred.
Component
Identifies the system's component where the deficiency occurred (e.g. Built -Up Pool).
Block 3
Deficiency/Correction
Documents the nature of the deficiency and recommends a solution.
Sizing
An optional field that can be used to identify dimensions and measurements.
Location
Identifies the physical location of a deficiency in a building.
Block 4
Additional Deficiency
Deficiency numbers of related deficiencies can be entered here.
Additional Study
If the parameters of a deficiency are not clear or the causes are
complicated, an additional study may be necessary to correctly define the
parameters of the problem.
Cause
Requires one of nine choices to be selected to identify the possible cause.
Critical/Deferrable
If a deficiency is considered as critical this choice is checked. If a
deficiency is deferrable one of the other three choices is checked.
Lead Craft
Identifies the lead craft that would be involved in the correction
Craft 2/Craft 3
Identifies additional crafts.
Priority
Up to two priority choices can be selected from the six level priority
choice list. A percentage of too for a single choice or a combination
totaling too for up to two choices are entered.
P/M/I
Designates a deficiency as a capital repair (P), a maintenance deficiency
(M), or an improvement (1).
Block 5
Alternative Repair If there is an alternative short or long-term repair solution to the deficiency
that is equally reasonable, either the S or L is circled to identify short or
long term and the alternative repair is described.
Cost Estimates The cost estimates for repair, consisting of estimated man-hours, material
cost, labor cost, and total cost, is entered here.
Quantity Provides a unit quantity for cost estimating.
Measure Identifies an appropriate unit of measure such as SY, LF, SF, EA, etc.
17
a n/10/99
slru<tur. Furnishings I Construction& Total Bldg Demo No Deficiencies Compliance -AD Cod. -Semdi m.ntel-Health
ParPI Demo 6 7 Found 8 q to n
M. EnorV COMPONENT -Enter ONEcomponeN ai,ai ONLY for EACH deLnancy:'.:t "Cooling Tovmrs"entec'D-303-0o3'4.Pi iENTERLETTER
Component Number: Detailed Description of Component:
13 __. _._—_ .. .._...._ __.._ _ ._-..._ __.. __... .._... __. ... _...
sit. issue (Used for Sytams F (hero M 47d131& make zor.
Meoh.nlcel
T 10 NIS) /S
vlavwn x as (tcton or 21s MAA)
CAUSE
it ONLY)
SRM REQM'TS(t ONLY)
M/R TIME LINE p ONLY)
I. Health/Safely Issue
I. Age/Wear,
9. Energy isst e
t i a1C Its crp iot1O'.
ter. Immediate Critical
318 East O.k Street
z Bldg/Sit,, F [ e
z. bvcalher
I10ADA'ssue
1.PM/Minor Rpr",n. Obsolete
III, Deferred-No,,cssary
fort Collins CO 805242915
3 System/Co p ant Isere
3 Sesnic
In C ie ssue
z Unschedul l y Use Change
z l IY err P.to'ciall, Cneczl
97OA93.1220
5 P d ¢liv tY/° Oporat rg 5
t sect/AniIII I
I I 2 t le Itl is
3 Ma)or R& R 6 PII cy
3 2 t 1, 3 Y-errs In raj to ,It
Fax: 970224.1314
S Io
II Se ty iss
/ Cat nlmI
A 4 t S Year I pI _..
)imcox(aaplusvch.eom
6 D s rableU IY V I Isere
61 f staation
Ito. Unknoson
9. fleged
5.6 to to Yeas R. nundod
/ N. Mint.
q LO:gived
! C Id(uthcre I f t t I I npru✓N
A- Audit Consultants
B Abuse
.........
I N A It.t A"It" .
flat n to. eceedl
Wiping Y sv
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE REPAIR_IF ANY"'
LShort Teml
2. Long Term
COST REFERENCE IS... Has &Costs: Total)
QUANTITY
UNIT^
TOTAL LABOR TOTAL MATL
TOTAL LABOR I TOTAL £QUIP7'TOTALCOST
GROSS COST
(Meu (Means Number)
HOURS (t z 3) COST Itr.)
COST 'p2 3) COST (1 2 3)I
(BARECOST)
(TOTALCOST)
is
�1
is
.. ._ ...
..
..
... S
..._
..
s f .._
3
I Additional
...
Il
{
s
s ....... s
St rzly fee
... ........
....
.....
..... ......
5
....... ._.
iy a
.....
t
5 _____
_........ ..........
IS
..........._ .....,
... ..... .....
..
.._
........ .___
S
....
li S
S
Novided Cost'
......
5
5 ... f ........
........
__.-.._..
......
f
.........
s s
5
3.Bi,dgatSEsL
......
....
..
_.... 5
s ....... �s
5 ..
(Seldom Used
.... ....... ..........
.,......
.....
........... s
1
5
It's a'WAG'7
.....
is
._.. Is—......
.......
S _.—_-._._. _.
'MARK - U P ve
I. Time:
2. SaffIrity:
3. Hez I D,Disp: ,,4
Matedol:
-II1, are dncunen(ngO.vner supa'ed data, list all of theysottees of hiList theni"WA Ihnr.n.ada1nf mfn.nlai— 1. 11,"MI:.,..., .,: A. ....,...._1-, r_
,it, that can be used: EA., S.F.. L.F.. S.Y., SQ., C.F., L.S., LOT
4. Technical Approach
Deficiency Scoring
To assist in the process of allocating repair funding a Deficiency Severity Score is calculated for each
deficiency. This score rates the relative severity of a given deficiency compared to other deficiencies.
The scoring systems were designed to maximize the objectivity of the surveyor while maintaining a
high level of consistency in application among different surveyors.
A three -step scoring process is used for generating a deficiency severity score. First, each facility is
assigned a facility -type designator that allows classifying a facility in order of its relative importance to
the client for which the survey is being performed. Second, a deficiency is designated as either critical
or deferrable. A deficiency is designated as Critical if it poses a potential threat to the health and/or
safety of building users or occupants. If a deficiency is not designated as Critical, it is by default an
upcoming deficiency. This implies that it can be deferred for funding for up to ten years from the date
of the assessment without posing a significant risk to health and/or safety. Deficiencies are designated
as Critical or Deferrable by assigning one of five time choices to the deficiency.
Deficiency Prioritization
Priority 1- Currently Critical (Immediate)
• Correct a cited safety hazard
• Stop accelerated deterioration
• Return a facility to operation
Priority 2 - Potentially Critical (Year i)
• Intermittent operations
• Rapid deterioration
• Potential life safety hazards
Priority 3 - Necessary/Not Yet Critical (Years 6-1o)
• Predictable deterioration
• Potential downtime
• Associated damage or higher costs if deferred further
Priority 4 - Recommended (Years 6-10)
• Sensible improvement to existing conditions that is not required for the basic function of the
facility
• Overall usability improvement
• Longterm maintenance cost reduction
Priority 5 - Does Not Meet Current Codes by "Grandfathered"
• No action is required at this time —however, substantial work performed in the future may
require correction
Once either critically or deferability have been established, a priority is assigned to the deficiency by
selecting either one or a combination of up to two potential levels of impact in descending order of
relative importance:
19
4. Technical Approach
• Health/Safety Issue
• Bldg. Function Issue
• Bldg. System /Component Issue
• Increased Operating Cost
• Increased Repair/Replacement Cost
• Desirable - Usually Visual
Each impact choice is relatively less important than the one preceding it and the surveyor assigns a
percentage totaling 100% to up to two of the potential impacts. A deficiency score is calculated for
each deficiency by a scoring algorithm built into the deficiency database management system. This
algorithm combines the values assigned to the facility ranking importance selected for each facility, the
five Critical, Deferred Maintenance and Upcoming deficiency choices, and the six Priority choices to
arrive at a total score for the deficiency.
Deficiency Characterization
At a minimum, C-FAR will categorize the deficiencies as follows:
• Construction Specification Institute (CSI) code
• Deficiency priority
• Deficiency category
• Facility type
• Correction type
• Repair cost
• Additional types of helpful sorts are available
Deficiency Categorization
Each correction project identified will be assigned to one of the following categories:
• Life -safety code compliance
• Building code compliance
• Building Integrity
• Appearance
• Energy
• Environmental
Data Management/Reporting
The deficiency data identified and documented during the survey process is entered into a
computerized database management system that is developed in Microsoft SQL Server.
Data reporting is accomplished through a set of standardized detail and summary reports that provide
a significant amount of information useful for repair as well as maintenance planning and programming.
0411
4. Technical Approach
Existing Data Integration
As Architecture Plus has done with previous audit clients, we will incorporate district -supplied
condition data into the assessment software, C-FAR, including analytical studies and reports. This
includes, but is not limited to roof inspections, AHERA Management Plans, and Accessibility studies.
Corrective Action Recommendations and Costing
Each deficiency describes the problem and recommends the work required to repair that deficiency.
Each deficiency is located within the facility so that the districts maintenance staff can locate it. Each
deficiency includes cost estimates based on nationally recognized construction standards, PS Means.
All costs are adjusted for the Denver area. C-FAR provides additional adjustments for:
• time (i.e. time to remove and reinstall books and shelving in a library in order to remove and
install carpet),
• security (i.e. it takes the contractor additional time to enter and exit a facility due to security
checks),
• hazardous material disposal (i.e. asbestos removal and disposal),
• materials (i.e. a higher quality material is used than what Means used for pricing).
All the data is easily updatable including the cost of living index for future repairs.
Deficiency Scoring Methodology
In most facility maintenance environments funding available for facility maintenance and repair never
matches need in terms of identified requirements. This is true for capital repairs and improvements as
well as for maintenance. Therefore, a key component of a sound maintenance planning and
programming system must be the ability to prioritize capital repair deficiencies for programming
system -wide over a multi -year period. At the field assessment level the key objective is to prioritize
deficiencies so that capital repair can be accomplished in a timely manner and potentially more costly
repairs can be forestalled. An equally important objective is to provide some basic measure of
potential benefit to be gained by investing dollars in maintenance and/or repairs. For this reason
Architecture Plus developed a set of algorithms for assigning a relative severity score to each
deficiency identified during a facility condition survey. The scoring algorithm is "transparent" to the
facility condition survey personnel so that it can be applied in a consistent manner.
Deficiency Severity Scoring
The key premise of the severity scoring methodology is that a surveyor should be able to assign a
relative severity score to each deficiency in an objective fashion based on a clearly defined set of
severity criteria. Timely accomplishment of repair work so that current deficiencies do not degrade to
the point where more costly corrective action is required was the primary concern in designing the
scoring system. A collateral concern was to reduce or eliminate any identified health and safety risks.
The core of the scoring process consists of
A reasonable set of definitions that are easily subscribed to by all levels of the survey
management and execution team.
21
4. Technical Approach
• A manageable number of priority levels, each of which is clearly distinct from the other.
• A clear implication of the potential impacts if corrective action is not taken.
Field prioritization of identified deficiencies is accomplished using the Facility Condition Assessment
Deficiency Form. A three -step scoring process is used which involves, first, assigning a facility -type
category identifier to a facility; second, determining whether a deficiency is Critical or Deferrable; and,
third, prioritizing the criticality or deferability using a priority ranking system.
Facility Ranking
Each facility is assigned a numerical score that becomes one element in developing a deficiency score
for each deficiency. The facilities are ranked in order of their relative importance to the basic "mission"
being performed at a given multi -facility site. The premise is that some facilities are more critical or
important to the "mission" than others due to the nature of the functions performed in them.
Therefore, they should receive greater consideration for funding of health/safety related
repair/maintenance in situations where budgets may be limited relative to the overall requirement for
repairs to a number of facilities. The ranking is 10 to 1, with 10 being the most critical and i being the
least critical to the "mission."
Critically vs. Deferability
A deficiency is considered Critical if it should be corrected within a short time of the date the
assessment that identified that deficiency was conducted. This means that if the deficiency is not
corrected within six months the potential for adverse impacts increases. Inherent in the assignment of
"Critical" to a deficiency are the following three general considerations:
1. If the deficiency is not corrected within a reasonable time a significant health and/or safety risk
will develop.
2.If the deficiency is not corrected within a reasonable time a significant increase in the cost of
corrective action could result.
3.If the deficiency is not corrected within a reasonable time the deficiency could degrade to the
point where an entire building system could be impacted.
All deficiencies degrade over time if they are not corrected, and often the cost of deferring corrective
action will increase. However, the magnitude of the degradation or cost increase is the key
consideration in determining that a deficiency is "Critical." For example, a built-up roof that has
deteriorated to the point where asphalt is bubbling and felts are beginning to separate is deteriorating.
However, if that deterioration is in its early stages and interior leaks are not yet present, roof
replacement/repair can be legitimately deferred. There is a high likelihood that in a three to six month
period there will be no significant increase in the repair/replacement cost of that roof or in the degree
of overall degradation. If, however, the roof has been deteriorating for some time and leaks have
become so common that they have begun to cause deterioration in other building systems the roof
should be classified as "Critical." The cost of replacing that roof will not increase; however, the total
cost of repairs associated with the leakage caused by that roof will in all likelihood increase
significantly. Not only will the roof continue to degrade, but there will also be associated roof
insulation, roof deck, or interior structural degradation, as well as possible damage to mechanical or
electrical system components.
22
November 13, 2008
Mr. Tracy Oschner
Assistant Director
City of Fort Collins Operations Services
215 N Mason ST
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Mr. Oschner:
Architecture Plus understands that it is your mission to provide quality project management,
planning and design services to your City departments in which projects are completed within
budget, within schedule and with customer satisfaction being of the utmost importance. You will be
pleased to know that you are able to hold us to the same high standards. Building Condition
Assessments are our specialty. We are confident we will meet or exceed all of your expectations.
Architecture Plus is an internationally recognized leader specializing in facility assessment services.
In our more than 20 year history, we have audited over 3,800 facilities from Guam to Alaska to
Florida and many places in between. Our project teams are experienced having to work under tight
deadlines as well as maintain flexible schedules. We have a strong history of completing our
assignments on time and on budget. The quality and usability of our deliverables has earned us a
high degree of satisfaction with our clients.
We tailor our audit process and services to meet your needs and select a report format that is best
suited for the specific project requirements. For the City of Fort Collins, Architecture Plus has two
audit options available, Option 1, NASA DM Method or Option 2, APPA Method. These options
differ in scope, from basic recording of observations to a complete documentation of costs and
priorities for major maintenance projects.
Architecture Plus has committed staff with significant audit experience to this project. Jim Cox,
Senior Principal of Architecture Plus will be your project principal/manager. The Architecture Plus
audit team is available to start this project immediately. Option 1, NASA DM Method or Option 2,
APPA Method and the optional items can be completed well within Fort Collins' completion date
of May 1, 2009.
Architecture Plus has performed facility assessments for over 300 million square feet of buildings
worldwide. Many of these assessments have been for school districts including: Adams 12, Poudre,
St. Vrain Valley, and Poway Unified, as well as the Wyoming School Commission and all community
colleges throughout the state of Washington. Please contact our references. They will attest to our
ability to perform and provide them the information they need in a format that they understand
and can work with.
I hope that the enclosed material is helpful to you, and we look forward to talking with you about your
audit endeavor. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal. We are excited for the chance
to work with you.
Regards,
Jim Cox, AIA + NCARB. LIED AP
1603 Capitol Avenue * Suite 205 + Cheyenne, WV + 82001-4569 + 307.632.9903 tel + 307.634.6468 fax
318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins, CO 80524 1 970.493.1220 tel + 970.224.1314 fax + www,oplusarch.com
4. Technical Approach
A deficiency is considered Deferrable if maintenance or repairs that were not performed when they
should have been or was scheduled to be and which, was put off or delayed for a future period.
A deficiency is considered an Impending deficiency if corrective action can be postponed for up to
five years from the date that the assessment, which identified the deficiency, was conducted.
Obviously, deficiencies can degrade a great deal during a five-year period, and their associated
corrective costs can also increase significantly. However, inherent in the assignment of "Deferrable' to
a deficiency are four general considerations:
t. The degree of degradation over the deferrable time frame will be at a relatively constant rate, or
at least will not increase significantly from year to year.
2.The degree of corrective cost increase over the deferrable time frame will be at a relatively
constant rate, or at least will not increase significantly from year to year.
3.Potential health/safety impacts will be minor and will not increase as to severity over the
deferrable time frame.
4.There will be little, if any, mission impact over the deferrable time frame.
The point at which noticeable changes in the character of a deficiency can be projected with respect
to the above considerations is the end point of the deferability time frame because at that point the
character of a deficiency can be assumed to change from "Deferrable' to "Critical."
On the field survey form the designation of "Critical' categorizes a deficiency as Critical and "Deferred
Maintenance" categorizes a deficiency as a repair that has been postponed. An Upcoming
categorization requires selecting from among three deferability choices --"To 1 Yr.", "To 3 Yrs.", or "To
io Yrs." -- to establish the deferability time frame. Thus, a deficiency can be deferred for up to 1, 3, or
io years without an appreciable change in the four considerations outlined above.
Repair/Maintenance Standards
A set of repair and maintenance standards was provided to the survey team personnel to serve as a
reference baseline for conducting the condition survey. The standards were designed as a tool to
assist facility condition assessment personnel by identifying minimum acceptable standards for
building system condition. The standards provide a series of benchmarks that focus on:
• Maintaining a facility in weather tight condition.
• Providing an adequate level of health and safety for occupants.
• Safeguarding capital investment in facilities,
• Helping meet or exceed the projected design life of key facility systems,
• Providing a baseline for maintenance planning.
The repair and maintenance standards are divided into major building systems that are subdivided into
key components within each building system.
Severity Scoring
A severity score is calculated for each deficiency by an algorithm that is programmed into the
database management system used by Architecture Plus for managing the survey data. The algorithm
23
4. Technical Approach
is a scoring process that calculates a severity score based on a numerical value assigned to each
facility -type category, each of the critical/deferrable choices, and the priority choices.
Examples of numerical values assigned to the facility -type category choices are:
Al
Administration - Critical
15
A2
Administration - Essential
13
A3
Administration - Beneficial
11
B
Cafeteria/Restaurant
10
C
Community/Museum/Gallery
8
D
Detention
6
E
Dwelling
3
F
Education
3
G
Fire/Safety/Security
11
H
Laboratory/Research/Testing
11
I
Liturgical
11
J1
Maintenance/Repair - Vital
8
J2
Maintenance/Repair - Desirable
4
J3
Maintenance/Repair- Convenient
2
K
Manufacturing/Production
9
L
Medical/Dental
8
M
Recreation
5
N
Site
1
O
Storage/Warehouse
5
P
Utility
1
Q
Vacant
1
R
Vehicle Garage/Parking
2
The numerical values assigned to the Critical/Deferrable choices are:
Immediate
4.0
To 1 Year
2.5
To 5 Years
1.5
To 10 Years
0.5
For the Priority choices the numerical values are:
Health/Safety 10
Facility Use 7
System Use 5
Increased Repair/Replacement Cost 3
Increased Operating Cost 2
Quality of Use 0.5
A deficiency score is calculated by adding the value of the selected priority choice/s to the value of
the selected facility category -type and multiplying that total by the value of the selected
critical/deferrable choice. Where more that one priority choice is applied to a deficiency, the
percentage of each priority applied is multiplied by the corresponding priority value. The results are
24
4. Technical Approach
added together and the sum is added to the value of the selected facility category -type and then
multiplied by the selected critical/deferrable choice.
For example, for a deficiency with an assigned deferability of "To 1 Year," a i00% assigned priority of
system use and a category -type score of 12; the deficiency score is 42.5. This score is calculated as:
Step 1: 1 x 5 = 5 where 5 is the value of system use and 1 is 100% since only one priority
choice was selected.
Step 2: 5 - 12 = 17 where 12 is the category -type score and 5 is the priority score of a
single priority choice.
Step 3: 17 x 2.5 = 42.5 where 17 is the sum of the priority and category -type scores and
2.5 is the value of the deferrable choice of "To 1 Year."
If more than one priority choice is assigned to a deficiency, say 25% system use and 75% increased
repair replacement cost, with a category -type score of 15, and an assigned deferability of "To 3 Years,"
the score would be calculated as:
Step 1: (.25 x 5) * (•75 x 3) = 3.5 where 5 is the value of system use, 3 is the value of
increased repair replacement cost, .25 is the 25% assigned to system use, and
.75 is the 75% assigned to increased repair replacement cost.
Step2: 3.5 - 15 = 18.5 where 15 is the category -type score and 3.5 is the sum of the
values of the two priority choices.
Step 3: 8.5 x 1.5 = 27.5 where 1.5 is the value of a deferability of "To 3 Years."
Facility Condition Index
One of the most powerful types of facility condition benchmarks is called the Facility Condition Index
(FCI). The FCI is a comparative indicator of the relative condition of facilities. The FCI is expressed as
a ratio of the cost of remedying maintenance deficiencies to the current replacement value. It thus
provides a method of measurement to determine the relative condition of a single building a group of
buildings or the total facility (physical plant). The calculation also provides a corresponding rule of
thumb for the annual reinvestment rate (funding percentage) to prevent further accumulation of
deferred maintenance deficiencies.
FCI = Five Year Maintenance Deficiencies ($)
Current Replacement Value ($)
From the formula above, one can see that the higher the FCI, the worse the building system(s). A
new building with no deficiencies and a i00% replacement would have an FCI of o.
Suggested condition ratios vary but the following numbers are considered to be reasonable:
FCI Range Condition Rating
Under.lo Good
.10-.25 Average
Over .25 Poor
25
4. Technical Approach
Facility Renewal Forecasting
Facility renewal is a budgeting tool. It is based on the assumption that predictable life cycles exist for
capital renewal and replacement, and that the life cycle for any type of facility will directly depend on
the life cycles of its separate components or subsystems. Subsystems include roofs, plumbing,
electrical systems, heating ventilation, air conditioning, structural elements, etc. By estimating the cost
of replacing subsystems and the cycles in which those replacements should occur, the annual budget
for reinvestment in facilities can be calculated.
Facility renewal is a statistical model, based on a set of clearly articulated assumptions, and it can be
used as a planning or budgeting tool for any property segment, including groups of facilities, an
individual building, or the property infrastructure.
Facility renewal provides policy makers with a credible forecasting tool for long -and short-term
budgeting.
The difference between the levels of predicted capital renewal needs and the actual expenditures on
facilities renewal can be expressed by the following formula;
Facilities Renewal Needs (over x years) - Actual Renewal Expenditures (over x years) = Increase in
Deferred Maintenance
It should be noted that (i) if renewal is postponed, or not addressed at all, it becomes deferred
maintenance and (2) even if the backlog of deferred maintenance is completely eliminated; it will
accumulate again unless annual funding is provided to include predicted renewal costs.
Cost Estimates
The repair cost estimates that have been provided for each deficiency represent the estimated
labor, material, and equipment cost for correcting the deficiency, plus applicable mark-ups as
noted below. The majority of these estimates are based on R. S. Means series of cost estimating
documentation, using the latest updated versions. Means cost guide numbers have been included
in the cost estimates. In those cases where estimating data for a unique item was not available
form these sources; the cost estimate provided is based on the experience of the technical
specialists on the assessment team, contact with vendors or construction specialists, or from
actual costs received from the client.
The report provides three cost estimates; (i) TOTAL BARE COST, (2) TOTAL IN-HOUSE COST,
and (3) TOTAL COST.
TOTAL BARE COST. 'Bare" cost is identified as the bare material cost, the bare labor
cost and the bare equipment cost with no overhead and no profit included. The TOTAL
BARE COST therefore is simply the sum of Bare Material Cost + Bare Labor Cost + Bare
Equipment Cost.
The formula for TOTAL BARE COST is; [Bare Material Cost + Bare Labor Cost + Bare
Equipment Cost] = TOTAL BARE COST.
26
ENRIUMNAMEZEM 4. Technical Approach
2. TOTAL IN-HOUSE COST, The TOTAL IN-HOUSE COST is the cost estimate if in-house
personnel performed the work. TOTAL IN-HOUSE COST is the sum of the Bare Material
Cost, plus the Bare Labor Cost times 33% for overhead times Security Access Cost if
applicable, times Hazardous Material Disposal if applicable, and the Bare Equipment Cost
times Security Access Cost if applicable, times Hazardous Material Disposal if applicable.
Then, that number is multiplied by the City Cost Index to arrive at the TOTAL IN-HOUSE
COST.
The formula for TOTAL IN-HOUSE COST reads: [Bare Material Cost + Bare Labor
Cost X 1.33 X SAC (Security Access Cost) X HMD (Hazardous Material Disposal) + Bare
Equipment Cost X Security Access Cost, X Hazardous Material Disposal] X CCI (City
Cost Index) = TOTAL IN-HOUSE COST.
3. TOTAL COST. The TOTAL COST is the cost estimate if the project work was bid and
contractors performed the work. The TOTAL COST is the sum of the Bare Material Cost
plus 10% for profit, the Bare Labor Cost plus 70% for overhead and profit, times the
Security Access Cost if applicable, times Hazardous Material Disposal if applicable, plus
the Bare Equipment Cost plus 10% for profit, times the Security Access Cost if applicable,
times Hazardous Material Disposal if applicable. Next, that number is multiplied by 7.5 %
for the installing contractor and 10 % for the general or prime contractor. Finally, that
number is multiplied by the City Cost Index to arrive at the TOTAL COST.
The formula for TOTAL COST reads: [Bare Material Cost X m + Bare Labor Cost X
1.70 X SAC (Security Access Cost) X HMD (Hazardous Material Disposal) + Bare
Equipment Cost X m X Security Access Cost, X Hazardous Material Disposal] X 1.075
X 1.1 X CCI (City Cost Index) = TOTAL COST.
The cost estimates do NOT, however, include the following items:
• Contingency Costs
• Architectural/Engineering Costs
• Additional Study/Analysis Costs
• Taxes, permits, special assessments, permit fees, etc.
However, any of the above items may be included if they need to be a factor to determine
final costs.
Other factors that may affect costs and are not included, include the size of project, season of the
year, weather conditions, local building code requirements, availability of skilled labor and
building materials, local union restrictions, etc.
The cost estimates provided have been developed to be "conservative" in terms of total cost.
However, it must be recognized that since the condition survey is based on a visual assessment,
hidden aspects of a deficiency cannot always be ascertained, due to the inability to see the extent
of the deterioration. The cost estimate, in that situation, cannot be determined until such time as
a repair is actually undertaken. An example of this would be roof insulation and decking. Often a
roof membrane replacement will not require decking or insulation replacement. However, there
are instances where once the membrane is removed it is determined that the decking and/or
insulation must also be replaced. In most cases the estimate for membrane replacement will not
27
4. Technical Approach
include insulation and/or decking unless it is apparent through visual indications on the surface of
the deck via blisters or indication on the underside via extensive staining, that the deck and/or
insulation are also deteriorated.
Similarly the extent of many structural deficiencies that may be behind walls, above ceilings, or
below floors is not visible and there are often no apparent signs of additional damage beyond
what is apparent on the surface. When possible, we visited with maintenance staff personnel and
building occupants to assist with determining the extent of concealed damage.
For this project the CCI (City Cost Index) number is 1.1 for an increase of io%. The City Cost
Index is a percentage ratio of a specific client's cost to the national average cost of the same item
at a stated time period.
It should be noted that the deferrable costs are adjusted for inflation. A figure of 3.0% per year
was used as an inflation factor. The source for the 3.0 % inflation figure is derived from figures
compiled by the U.S Department of Commerce, US Department of Labor, and Whitestone
Research.
As cost repairs fall below $1,000.00, the labor hours/costs may be small. Many of these small
projects can be done for these amounts if they are done as part of another repair. However as a
stand-alone item, the labor hours /costs would have to be increased.
For these reasons, the cost estimates contained herein are meant to represent "base' costs for
repair planning and programming. They can be impacted by the contingencies noted above.
Realistically, because of these unknowns and associated contingencies, the actual costs of
correcting a deficiency can be between 15% and 25% higher than the cost estimates provided for
each deficiency.
These considerations should be taken into account when developing a multi -year maintenance
plan and the appropriate added cost percentage should be included in any final cost estimate
developed for the plan.
28
Section 5 Firm Qualifications
Emerson
Jeff Sweers
Electrical Testing
of Panels
City of Fort Collins
Organizational Chart
Building Audits
city of
Fort Collins
City of Fort Collins
Director
Ken Marmon
Tracy Ochsner
Project Manager and Facilities Services
Assistant Director
Project Manager
Project Contact
Jim Cox - "On Ca#-
1-888-698-7897
jimcoxaa.pIpsarch.corn
Database Programmer/IT
Christopher Snarr
"On-call"/Customize
Data base/Trainer/QP
Data Entry
Teresa Suazo
Institute for the
Built Environment
Brian Dunbar
LEED-EB
Field Auditors
Jim Cox
Architectural/Site /QR
Pick Favinger
Mechanical & Dectrical
Andre Pack
Staffing, Maintenance and
Operations Analyst
No Text
nin
James A. Cox,
Principal
Education
Bachelor of Science, Architecture, Texas A & M University
Professional Registration and Organizations
Registered in Colorado, Wyoming, and with the NCARB
Member of AIA
LEED AP
Professional Overview
Jim is the senior principal of Architecture Plus. He is a senior architect with 39 years experience with
expertise in design of governmental, commercial, and institutional facilities, space planning,
programming, and facility assessment services. He has held technical and management positions with
design firms, government agencies, and consulting firms. Jim is the founding principal of Architecture
Plus, which was established in 1970 in Fort Collins. Jim has received local, regional, and national design
awards.
With the addition of facility audit consulting services in 1986, Jim has specialized in capital asset
planning and management. As such, Jim has documented building material, equipment, ADA, and
building code deficiencies for more than ioo million square feet of buildings. These buildings have
been subjected to the impact of diverse environments in such locations as Alaska and Florida including
locations in between.
Jim actively participates in the audit process as an auditor, team leader, and principal -in -charge. The
services focus on evaluation and recommendations for operation and maintenance of facilities in the
public and private sectors. Jim evaluates construction materials, equipment, details, and maintenance
procedures. Jim expertise with facility condition assessments emphasizes structural and roofing
systems, ADA standards, code issues, development of maintenance standards and procedures, long-
range maintenance planning, coordinating the assessment information collected by the engineers, and
producing the final condition assessment report for the owner.
Some of the facilities where Jim has recently completed Architectural, Structural, and ADA
assessments include:
• Adams 12 School District
• Poudre School District
• St Vrain Valley School District
• Poway Unified School District
• La Petite Day Care Centers
• Washington State Community Colleges
• Wyoming School Commission
• Colorado State University
• Wyoming State Parks and Historic Sites
• Wyoming State Government Buildings
• U.S. Mint in Denver
FiS
• U.S. Mint in San Francisco
• U.S. Mint in Philadelphia
• City of Fort Collins
• City of Berkeley, CA
• City of Kent, WA
• FAA Technical Center; Atlantic City, NJ
• State of Oregon Prison System
• Colorado National Guard Armories
• Guam Navel Base
• Numerous Navy/Marine Corps Bases: CA to AK
• Cecil Commerce Center; Jacksonville, FL
Section 1 Introduction
Richard D. ("Rick") Favinger Mechanical and Electrical Sr. Assessor
EDUCATION
B.S.- Mechanical Engineering University of Colorado at Denver
A.S. - Mechanical Design Technology Arapahoe Community College
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Mr Favinger has over 25 years experience in the engineering field with 13 years serving as a
facility engineer for a major oil company's research lab and 5 years working for a mechanical
and electrical consulting engineering firm. He founded RF Consulting Inc. in July, 2001
Because of his extensive experience in facility maintenance, Mr. Favinger has spent the last 12
years specializing in facility condition assessments. Working either independently or with a
team of well -trained experts, he has helped numerous facility owners and potential owners
understand the operation and maintenance issues associated with their facilities as well as
update or streamline their maintenance programs. This experience benefits property owners
when commissioning services and maintenance program assessments for HVAC, gas and
electrical systems are performed.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Representative project experience relevant to this procurement in which Mr. Favinger has had
significant technical responsibility includes:
Assessment services for Structural, Roofing, Architectural, HVAC, Mechanical, Electrical, Fire
Protection, and ADA conditions we provided for the following facilities:
St. Vrain School District
Adams 12 School Dist.
Poudre School Dist.
Colorado State University
U.S. Navel Facilities, Guam
Various U.S. Postal Facilities
across the United States
WY State Parks and
Historic Sites
AFFILIATIONS
International Facility Management Association
U.S. Olympic Training Centers
HP/Agilent Technologies
City of La Junta, CO
City of Lamar, CO
IBM Guadalajara, Mexico
NCWCD Berthoud Fa
Commissioning
City of Jacksonville, FL.
Jacksonville Airport Authority
cility
0
ANDRE J. PACK Staffing, Maintenance and Operations Analyst
EDUCATION
M.A. - Urban Planning, University of California -Los Angeles
B.A. — Liberal Arts, Loyola University of Los Angeles
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Mr. Pack is the founder and Principal of Pack & Associates, Inc. He has been involved with facility
maintenance management, and public works operations and management since 1978. He has held
technical and managerial positions in county and state government agencies and has over twenty-five
years experience providing maintenance management and public works operations consulting services to
government agencies and private clients.
Mr. Pack's specific areas of expertise include facility condition assessments, development of
maintenance standards and procedures, short/long range maintenance planning and programming,
facility maintenance management operations analysis, maintenance operations outsourcing and
privatization studies, economic analysis, maintenance support contracting, and the development and
implementation of maintenance management information systems. Since founding Pack & Associates,
Inc. in 1988, Mr. Pack routinely provides not only project management but also participates as an active
member of project teams.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Representative project experience relevant to this procurement in which Mr. Pack has had significant
technical responsibility includes:
City of Fort Collins Experience
♦ Condition survey of 29 facilities and evaluation of Facility Division operations for the City of Fort
Collins to determine whether personnel resources are adequate; operating protocols are
effective; and service levels are optimal. Project also included an evaluation of key labor, control,
CA, contracting and cost issues relative to potential outsourcing of maintenance functions.
Related West Coast Experience
♦ Operations analysis of the San Diego County Facilities Services division focused on analysis of
maintenance service levels; determination of optimum staffing levels; re -engineering
recommendations for maintenance operations to provide efficiency improvements and cost
savings; and evaluation of costs and benefits of managed competition or outright outsourcing of
maintenance functions.
♦ Maintenance operations analysis for the City of Shoreline, Washington to evaluate staffing
adequacy; adequacy of existing maintenance protocols; develop maintenance performance
measures; recommend enhancements to operating protocols; and compare costs of in-house
versus contracted maintenance options.
♦ Cost of Service analysis and life -cycle cost studies to determine the costs and benefits of
privatizing utility systems at the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in Washington and the Naval
Construction Battalion Center in Port Hueneme, California.
• . Condition survey and analysis of maintenance operations and staffing for the Port of Everett in
Washington.
♦ Condition survey of architectural and roofing systems; and preparation of maintenance, capital
repair and renovation project programming recommendations for 34 community/technical
colleges for the State of Washington.
♦ Condition surveys of architectural and roofing systems, and preparation of a multi -year
maintenance plan and recommendations for the City of Berkeley, CA, the County of San Diego,
CA, the City of Kent, WA and the U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico
AFFILIATIONS
International Facility Management Association 32
Urban and Regional Information Systems Association
Christopher A. Snarr
IT/Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer
Professional Overview
Christopher is a principal of SCC Web -Data Solutions Inc. located in Loveland, CO
(http:[[www.sccwebdata.c_om), a company specializing in web and database programming since
1997. He has extensive experience and training in the following areas:
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE)
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Installation and Programming
Microsoft IIS Server Installation and Setup
Microsoft Access Database Programming (all versions)
Visual Basic for Applications (VBA)
SQL Programming
JavaScript Programming
VBScript Programming
Visual Basic Programming
Microsoft Office Suite (all versions)
ASP (Active Server Page) Programming
EDI Programming
And numerous additional qualifications not listed.
Projects
While working as a Programmer/Database administrator, Christopher has programmed and
worked on a number of projects for different clients. Here is a brief description of a few
projects that he has worked on:
Hach Company: Provide IT services, and intranet web site and database programming. Using
Microsoft Access and SQL Server, created reporting systems for work flow, parts
obsolescence and a detailed web site for information sharing between all divisions of the
parent company, Danaher.
Architecture Plus: Programmed an online Audit database that contains interactive reports and
data entry screens. Also programmed an online calculator containing industry standard
construction data to help them better calculate their audit costs. He used Active Server Pages
and SQL Server and Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services to achieve these tasks.
New West Solutions: As a subcontractor for New West Solutions, programmed various web
sites as well as complex reporting databases that create charts and graphs for multiple
companies.
Below is a partial summary of some of the companies that Christopher has specifically
programmed databases for and the type of database used
IBM - Microsoft Access
Hach Co. - Microsoft Access/SQL Server
Philadelphia Mint - Microsoft Access
Denver Mint- Microsoft'Access
Adams 12 School District - Microsoft
Access/SQL Server
CCMK Architecture & Planning - Microsoft
Access/SQL Server
Colorado Dept. of Military Affairs -
Microsoft Access
FAA - Microsoft Access
La Petite - Microsoft Access/SQL Server
The State of Wyoming - Microsoft
Access/SQL Server
Wyoming Parks Dept - Microsoft
Access/SQL Server
Microsemi - Microsoft Access/Excel/DB2
Section b Sub Consultants
Brian Dunbar
Josie Plaut Institute for the Built Environment
Institute for the Built Environment at CSU (IBE) is a multidisciplinary research institute whose
mission is to foster stewardship and sustainability of the built environment through research -
based, interdisciplinary educational forums. We specialize in guiding and facilitating integrated
sustainable design and construction projects and offer project teams the expertise and guidance
needed to realize their potential for creating more sustainable built environments. Further, IBE
engages students at Colorado State University in meaningful and valuable educational
experiences through guided research and professional involvement on local green building and
sustainability projects.
Institute for the Built Environment has been responsible for the facilitation and coordination of
LEED documentation for over 20 LEED projects, including the LEED for Existing Buildings
certification of Porter Industries in Loveland. In addition, IBE and Sustainable Building graduate
students at Colorado State University are currently working with the City of Ft. Collins in the
information gathering and documentation of the LEED-EB Operations and Maintenance of 215
N. Mason St.
Brian Dunbar, M.Arch., Executive Director, Institute for the Built Environment & Full
Professor, Department of Construction Management
Brian Dunbar is the Executive Director of the Institute for the Built Environment (IBE) and
professor of Construction Management at Colorado State University. Professor Dunbar holds
two degrees in architecture from the University of Michigan, is a U.S. Green Building Council
LEED-NC and LEED-CI Accredited Professional. Brian's teaching, research, and project work
focuses on environmentally sustainable design and construction materials, methods, and
systems. Professor Dunbar coordinates the graduate emphasis in sustainable building at
Colorado State and has developed university and professional courses on sustainable building,
including an annual course on St. John, USVI.
Brian has guided project work and facilitated charrettes for the National Park Service, U.S.
Forest Service, American Institute of Architects, municipalities, school districts, and the
Colorado Governor's Office of Energy Management and Conservation. In 2004, Brian was
selected as a LEED faculty member by the USGBC. Brian's sustainable building teaching and
research has been honored and recognized by the AIA, the USGBC-Colorado Chapter, the
Colorado Governor, local communities, and universities.
Josie Plaut, M.S., Director of Projects, Institute for the Built Environment
Josie is Director of Projects for the Institute for the Built Environment at Colorado State
University. She has a degree in Business and Sustainability from Fort Lewis College and a
Masters of Construction Management with an emphasis in Sustainable Building at Colorado
State University. Josie has worked in the private, non-profit and government sectors to facilitate
and coordinate green building projects and is an experienced instructor, lecturer and workshop
facilitator. Josie is LEED v2.0 and v2.2 Accredited Professional and she has extensive
knowledge in LEED compliant design, construction, and documentation. In addition to green
building, Josie has researched and facilitated organizational change toward the adoption of
sustainable values and practices.
33
Institute for the Built Environment
CJnive
College of Applied Human Sciences
rsity
The Institute for the Built Environment (IBE) was established in 1994 to foster
stewardship and sustainability of the built environment through interdisciplinary
research -based, educational forums. Since 1994, IBE has performed on and off -campus
teaching, research, and service -learning projects focused on green building and
sustainable development. IBE brings together faculty and students from multiple
disciplines to partner with regional project teams with a goal of providing sustainable
building training, research, and community service. In line with Colorado State
University's mission as the land grant institution in Colorado, IBE is positioned to provide
expertise, applied research, and outreach to projects in and around Colorado in settings
that encourage collaborative learning and innovation.
Green Building Education
The IBE staff is dedicated to providing an integrated education to a full range of students
— graduate students, undergraduate students, built environment professionals, and
communities. We strive to design engaging classroom discussion and research
assignments, charrette (sustainable design workshop) participation, and experiential
service learning whenever possible.
Curriculum
The Construction Management Graduate Program, and specifically the emphasis of
Sustainable Building which was established in 2001, continues to grow. A large
contingent of entering graduate students chose the Sustainable Building emphasis within
the Construction Management graduate program each year.
• Green Building Certificate Programs
Our 12-week evening Green Building Certificate
Programs (GBCP) offer design and construction
professionals a comprehensive overview of this fast
growing, dynamic field. GBCPs focused on
commercial buildings and green homes are offered at
the CSU Denver Center each fall and on campus in
Fort Collins each spring. We receive ongoing feedback from around the country that IBE
offers a unique program, focused on green building and LEED, that capitalizes on the
depth of expertise in regional practitioners we are fortunate to be able to tap as faculty.
Trainings
Beyond the professional certificate programs, IBE provides training for design and
construction organizations. In 2006-08, IBE has provided green building/LEED training
seminars for companies such as Palace Construction, Mark Young, Delta Construction,
Sturgeon, PCL (Denver, Phoenix, and San Diego offices) and Opus Development;
organizations such as the Poudre School District, U.S. Green Building Council -Colorado
chapter, and the Union of Architects and Engineers of Costa Rica; and at conferences
such as the New York City `Building NYC' conference, and `Green Schools' conferences
in Colorado, Arizona, and Florida.
34
Service Learning Project Work
The opportunities and experiences that students are gaining through service learning
project work at IBE become a valuable portion of a graduate student's education. The
demand for project work from students and the community continues to grow. There are
many considerations related to the service work that IBE is providing to students and to
regional communities. According to students, industry, and the community at large, IBE
is providing valuable service and learning contributions to all parties involved.
Service learning projects continue to be an important part of IBE's offering to graduate
students. IBE staff and student interns have been working with local and regional projects
to facilitate integrated design through project charrettes, green building research, and
LEED management, coordination and documentation. Brief descriptions of some of the
projects that we have engaged in during 2006-08 are listed below.
Selected Completed Projects
• Fossil Ridge High School, Certified LEED-NC v2.1 Silver
Poudre School District in Fort Collins, Colorado is strongly committed to
sustainable design, particularly minimizing energy use in their school
buildings. The District routinely follows a set of internally develop
Sustainable Design Guidelines that has resulted in a collection of
nationally renowned K-12 facilities. IBE provided LEED coordination,
documentation, and related LEED certification services for the project.
• Green Classrooms of Guggenheim Hall, Certified LEED-CI Silver
Guggenheim Hall, built in 1910, is home to Construction Management
program at Colorado State University. In July 2006, IBE was notified
that the Guggenheim classrooms, a collaborative effort between
faculty, students, and CSU Facilities, were the first university
classrooms in the nation to receive LEED-CI certification. IBE staff
provided green building research and USGBC/LEED coordination.
City of Denver Justice Center
In the Fall of 2005, IBE was contracted to provide guidance and training with a $380
million project for the construction of a Courthouse, Detention Facility, Parking Garage,
and renovations at the County Jail. IBE helped draft language for the RFP/RFQs and
provided guidance to the architect selection committee.
New Belgium Brewing, Sustainability Mngmt System
In partnership with The Brendle Group, IBE has worked with
New Belgium Brewing on their corporate sustainability
education and implementation of higher forms of sustainable
business practices. IBE staff and students have performed
research about green roof design and permeable paving for
New Belgium's brewery.
35
• City of Ft.
Collins-CSU Transit Center, LEED-NC v2 Gold
The City of Ft. Collins Transit Center is a 2006 addition
to the Lory Student Center on the Colorado State
University campus. IBE students and staff facilitated a
sustainable design charrette and coordinated the
documentation and submission of the LEED
documentation to the U.S. Green Building Council.
• Burr Oak Office Building, Seeking LEED-NC v2.2 Silver
Burr Oak is an award-winningtenant-owned office buildin
constructed in south Fort Collins that houses Dangler Associates,
Architects and BHA Design, a landscape architecture firm owned
by Bruce Hendee, IBE board member and Green Building
Certificate Program faculty. IBE coordinated the integration of
green building strategies and the coordination/submission of the LEED documentation.
Nearing Completion
• Seven Generations Office Park, Seeking LEED-CS v2.0 Platinum
The Seven Generations Office Park is a 56,000 square foot speculative commercial
office project, located in southeast Fort Collins, is the first project in northern Colorado to
seek Platinum certification, the highest level of LEED. IBE has LEED project
management responsibilities for the notable project.
• Sundance Professional Center, Seeking LEED-CS Pilot, Silver
Sundance is a professional and medical office building located in Loveland, partially
occupied by a dental practice with the remaining spaces ready for tenant fit out. The
architect for Sundance is Steve Steinbicker, who has helped teach a CM Facilities class,
designed Pioneer School, and is an IBE board member. IBE contracted with the project
team to provide charrette, green building research, and LEED management services.
• Timnath Elementary— IBE is partnering with the Poudre School District to design and
certify the first LEED for Schools registered project in the nation. In addition to
incorporating innovative green building features, the school will emphasize the
concept of a `school building that teaches', engaging students in experiential learning
about the connection between how a building operates and a healthy planet.
Other selected IBE projects in various stages of development, include:
• The Falls — LEED-Core and Shell office buildings, Greg Fisher, Architect
• Harvest Green — Sustainable development of a new neighborhood, school, and
businesses, Stoner Development
• Rockwell Hall, College of Business, Colorado State University, LEED
• Cheyenne Botanic Gardens, Children's Discovery Center, LEED for New
Construction, TDS, Inc.
36
IBE Directors
Brian Dunbar, M. Arch, LEED AP, Executive Director. Brian is in his 24th year as a
faculty at Colorado State University and 101h year as director of IBE. Brian has helped to
establish the graduate emphasis in sustainable building, is lead instructor for the Green
Building Certificate Programs, LEED faculty with the U.S. Green Building Council and
oversees the research, outreach, and development of the Institute.
Lenora Bohren, Ph.D., Director of Research. Lenora has worked on environmental
issues with the USEPA and the USDA, has developed an environmental education
curriculum for middle school students and directs international Clean Air Conferences.
She has also has worked with the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory (NREL) at CSU,
assessing attitudes toward adaptation to climate change, and has lead school indoor air
quality programs, most recently for the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation school system.
Dale Pettigrew, Director of Outreach Education. Dale Pettigrew directs Outreach
Education for IBE, coordinating the Green Building Certificate Programs and
professional trainings. Dale has a long involvement in sustainable building and energy
conservation, is an active member of the Northern Colorado branch of the Colorado
Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, and serves as adviser to the CSU Emerging
Green Builders student group.
Josie Plaut, M.S., LEED AP, Director of Projects. A CM and IBE alum, Josie was hired
in January 2006 as Director of Projects for IBE. Josie has managed 14 LEED
registered projects since joining IBE. Josie directs, teaches, and collaborates with
students on service learning and research projects as well as providing green building
education through the Outreach and Training services. Her research has focused on
integrating sustainability into design and construction processes and corporate
operations.
Achievements of Graduates that have interned with IBE
Colorado State University graduate students, enrolled in the Sustainable Building
Emphasis in the Construction Management Department, have been given significant
industry opportunities, thanks to the research and service learning work they perform
with the Institute for the Built Environment on regional green building projects. Students
learn details of LEED and green building while working directly with project design and
construction professionals. Selected examples of IBE interns (all of whom gained their
LEED AP credential while interning) and their subsequent career accomplishments
follow:
Katherine (Pettit) Wagenschutz is now LEED project coordinator for CTG Energetics, in
Colorado Springs, consulting on LEED projects around the nation and performing LEED
Certification Reviews for the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).
John Mlade is the National Research Manager for Science and Technology
Sustainability for Perkins and Will, a large architectural firm with 19 offices worldwide.
37
Grant French was hired by Swinerton Builders at their headquarters in San Francisco,
one of the first LEED-EB Certified buildings. Swinerton, an industry leader in green
construction, recently appointed Grant as Director of Sustainability, in charge of
coordinating sustainability education and LEED integration into projects nationwide.
Josie Plaut has been retained by the IBE and serves as Director of Projects, directly
working with graduate students on IBE research and service learning projects. Josie was
asked by the president of the USGBC to present her dynamic research thesis to their
national board in 2006.
Christian Williss, still completing his thesis on LEED adoption by U.S. cities, is now with
the City of Denver Facility Planning Department, helping the city integrate sustainable
operations into many existing facilities.
Ben Stanley interned for IBE during the 2006-2007 school year and is now LEED project
manager for YRG Consulting, located in Boulder and New York city.
Clare Epke holds a job as sustainable designer with Davis Partners, a large architectural
firm in Denver.
Annie Lilyblade is a project manager for Neenan Archistruction, managing green health
care projects and leading Neenan's transformation to a recognized leader in green
building in Colorado.
Amy Kreye, who managed the LEED Gold certified CSU Transit Center, is employed by
Fairfield Development, who has charged Amy with helping Fairfield respond to the
growing green homes demand.
Aaron Kemp-Hesterman, Dana Villenueve and Erik Beke, current students, have been
given employment opportunities with Architectural Energy Corporation.
1. Introduction
Architecture Plus' most recently completed audit included all of the St Vrain Valley School District's 44 schools plus modulars and support facilities.
Overview
Architecture Plus is an internationally recognized leader specializing in facility assessment services. In our more than
20 year history, we have audited over 3,80o facilities from Guam to Alaska to Florida and many places in between.
Our project teams are experienced having to work under tight deadlines as well as maintain flexible schedules. We
have a strong history of completing our assignments on time and on budget. The quality and usability of our
deliverables has earned us a high degree of satisfaction with our clients.
Architecture Plus prides itself in providing you with all the information you will need to solve your maintenance
needs. From our many years of experience, we have developed a highly successful approach for managing our
facility audits, yet our approach is flexible to meet your needs. Our program has a strong "backbone" of
general audit information. From that, we can modify input, and thus, the output to meet your requests.
Xml
b � r
Examples of some of our services include inspections of roof top equipment, electrical and mechanical room equipment, track and field, transportation
facilities, roofs and awnings
Experience
Mr. Jim Cox, AIA and LEED AP, will be Architecture Plus' project manager for this project. Jim is the senior
principal of Architecture Plus. He is a senior architect with 39 years of experience. His extensive knowledge
of facility assessment and architecture proves invaluable when performing facility condition assessment
services. Jim actively participates in the audit process as an auditor, team leader, and principal -in -charge.
Managing a team such as the one proposed for this project is not unusual for him, as he has directed teams on -
site as large as twenty one people, all actively engaged in collecting field data.
We are experts when it comes to working with local and state governments and handling all of the particulars
involved. We have performed facility audits on all of the armories in the state of Colorado for the Department of
Military Affairs. We have also audited all of the facilities for the Wyoming State Parks and Historic Sites, prepared
the site standards for all K-12 schools in Wyoming, as well as performed audits on all of the government owned
buildings for the State of Wyoming. Under Mr. Cox's superb leadership, your project will remain focused and on
schedule with regular client feedback directly from Mr. Cox.
Flexible Audit Options
Architecture Plus tailors the audit process and services to meet individual client needs and selects a report format
that is best suited for the specific project requirements. For the City of Fort Collins, Architecture Plus has two
audit options available. Audits differ in scope, from basic recording of observations (OPTION 1, below) to a
complete documentation (OPTION 2, below) of costs and priorities for major maintenance projects.
Emerson Process Management
Electrical Reliability Services, Inc.
7100 Broadway, SIIItC 7E
Denver, CO 80221
USA
'i (303) 427 8809
F (303)427-4080
ww v.Crs.a55etwcb.coRl
1.0
The NFPA Standard 70B "Electrical Equipment Maintenance 1999" states, "Electrical
equipment deterioration is normal, but failure is not inevitable." An effective electrical
maintenance testing piogr'arn identifies and recognizes factors leading to deterioration
and provides measures for coping with these factors. A well administered testing
program can reduce accidents, save lives and minimize costly breakdowns and
unplanned shutdowns of production equipment.
Benefits of an effective electrical testing program fall into two categories: a) Direct
reasurable economic benefits are derived by reduced cost of repairs and reduced
down time. b) Less measurable but very real benefits result from improved safety in
the operation of the electrical system.
This service proposal is designed using industry standards to provide ,Company',
with economic and safety -related benefits. This program will also establish a base-
line record to be utilized as an ongoing maintenance program to enhance the system
reliability through future preventative maintenance.
2.0 SCOPE
The project workscope includes the following equipment to be tested in accordance
with Section 3.0 of this proposal:
Thermography and Current spot check at multiple building's in Fort Collins per
Addendum No. 1 RFP: P1154
3.0 PROCEDURES
3.1 Infrared Inspection
3.1.1 Visual and Mechanical Inspection
Removal of equipment covers to allow visual access to current
carrying conductors by Facility /Contractor/ personnel.
.2 Inspection for physical damage.
.3 Scanning of each accessible load current carrying piece of
equipment using an infrared camera.
.4 Verification of actual temperature of problem areas relative to
ambient temperatures noted during thermographic survey.
.5 Documentation of the problem areas with a still photograph to
clarify problem identification and location.
.6 Reinstallation of covers to equipment by Facility /Contractor
personnel.
.7 Verification of proper working clearances. (NEC 110.16 or 110-
34)
.8 Documentation of proper device identification. (NEC 110-21)
.9 Inspection for unused openings. (NEC 110-12)
.10 Identification of inaccessible and/or unobservable areas and/or
equipment.
3.1.2 Electrical Tests
1 Documentation of instantaneous current measurements of all
safely accessible problem areas. This data can be utilized for
determining the equipment loading during the infrared inspection.
.2 Documentation of current measurements of all safety accessible
load carrying conductors.
40
Section 7 References
References
1 Adams Twelve Five Star Schools
Gerald Crumpton
1500 East 128th Avenue
Thornton, CO 80241
(720) 972-4209
2 Poudre School District
Ed Holder
2407 Laporte
Fort Collins, CO 8o521
(970) 490-3412
3 St Vrain Valley School District
Steve Burt
395 S Pratt PKWY
Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 682 7262
41
7. References
Section 8 Fee Estimate
8. Fee Estimate
A through D
Scope of Services
Using Option 1, NASA Method
Buildings
1 through 13
$ 7,989.00
84 hours
Building
14
$ 513.00
5.5 hours
Building
15
$ 1,026.00
11 hours
Building
16
$ 190.00
2 hours
Building
17
$ 1,009.00
10.5 hours
Building
18
$ 233.00
2.5 hours
Using Option 2, APPA Method
Buildings
1 through 13
$ 31,954.00
426 hours
Building
14
$ 2,125.00
28 hours
Building
15
$ 4,104.00
55 hours
Building
16
$ 76o.00
to hours
Building
17
$ 4,036.00
54 hours
Building
18
$ 931.00
12.5 hours
E Staffing Analysis $ 24,975.00 280 hours
(see details below)
F Privatization
of Maintenance Functions $11,400.00 120 hours
(see details below)
G Electrical phase/load readings
and Infrared on distribution panels $ 7,632.00 65 hours
* It is our understanding that the Institute for the Built Environment is presently assisting the City
with obtaining a Gold LEED - EB designation for 215 N Mason. We have worked with the Institute for
the Built Environment in the past and are proud to have them on our team. A fee can be negotiated
for the City Hall project once scope of services is defined for this component of the project.
✓ Architecture Plus Acknowledges Receipt of Addendums t and 2
42
Labor billing rates for Consultant and Consultant's sub -consultants:
Project Manager
Jim Cox $95.00 per hour
Sr. Assessors
Rick Favinger $95.00 per hour
Andre Pack $95.00 per hour
Data Base Programmer/IT
Christopher Snarr $75.00 per hour
Clerical
Teresa Suazo $5_5.00 per hour
Others
LEED Consultants
Brian Dunbar $150.00 per hour
Josie Plaut $no oo per hour
Students
43
8. Fee Estimate
$60.00 per hour
8. Fee Estimate
City of Fort Collins Staffing Study Approach
An analysis of maintenance staffing adequacy can best be achieved by looking at maintenance service levels
provided by the organization, the associated performance measures for those service levels, and how current
staffing allows meeting performance goals. In this type of analysis two issues will invariably emerge. First, either
current staffing is not adequate to meet performance criteria, or current service levels are inadequate. Second, is
the organization providing optimal levels of service to achieve desired customer satisfaction, service efficiency, and
facility/equipment reliability.
Both issues can be addressed in a straightforward fashion through the first four tasks outlined below and staffing
recommendations can be developed. The fifth, optional, task would look at existing protocols to determine their
adequacy in supporting maintenance operations.
Task t - Review Existing Maintenance Operations - (32 hrs.)
1.i Discuss Existing Facility Maintenance Structure and Responsibilities
-Discuss Key Responsibilities of Maintenance Organization
-Outline and Overview of Maintenance Organization
-Identify/Discuss Current Staffing
1.2 Overview of City Facilities
-Categorize/Discuss Facility Use (e.g. admin; public safety; recreation)
-Overview of Key On -Going Maintenance Issues by Facility Category
13 Overview of Collateral Responsibilities of Maintenance Staff (non -maintenance)
Task 2 - Review Current Service Levels - (56 hrs.)
2.1 Overview of Existing Service Levels (Level of Service and Impact on Service)
-Preventive Maintenance
-Emergency Maintenance
-Minor/Routine Maintenance/Repair
-Capital Repair
-Service Contracts
-Customer Satisfaction
2.2 Overview of Performance Measures and Associated Labor -Hour Data
-Preventive Maintenance
-Emergency Maintenance
-Minor/Routine Maintenance/Repair
-Capital Repair
-Service Contracts
-Customer Satisfaction
44
8. Fee Estimate
2.3Discuss Adequacy of Current Staffing (Ability to Meet Service Levels)
2.4 Discuss Adequacy of Current Service Levels
Task 3 - Determine Desired Service Levels and Staffing - (56 hrs.)
3.1 Recommended Service Levels (Measure and Target)
3.2 Recommend Staffing Levels Based on Desired Service Levels
Task 4 - Report Preparation (Writing Draft and Final) - (40 hrs.) (40 hrs clerical)
Task 5 (Optional) - Review Existing Maintenance Protocols - (56 hrs.)
5.1 Overview/Adequacy of Maintenance Protocols
-Work Initiation
-Work Categorization
-Work Scheduling and Performance
-Customer Notification/Feedback
-Service Contract Management
5.2 Identify Impediments to Effective Operations
-Lack of Written Standards
-Lack of Written Policies and Procedures
-Inadequate Training
-Support System Inadequacy
5.3 Recommend Protocol Enhancements
Architecture Plus estimates approximately 184 labor hours for Mr. Pack's services with 56 optional hours, plus 40
clerical hours to accomplish the above.
45
8. Fee Estimate
Privatization of Fort Collins Maintenance Functions
The City has indicated a desire to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of privatizing (outsourcing) its maintenance
functions. A cost/benefit analysis within the context of a privatization (outsourcing) analysis would actually
compare the costs and benefits of in-house services with contracted services. This would first require a
management study/operations analysis to develop a Most Efficient Organization (MEO) construct for the
maintenance operation. The MEO represents the minimum structure and resource levels that should be
implemented. In addition, a Performance Work Statement would be necessary which spells out the expected level
of performance for the functions under scrutiny. This provides the only true basis to compare in-house vs
contractor costs. This approach assumes that the City has already made a decision to pursue outsourcing.
Architecture Plus would recommend, instead, an analysis that looks at the advantages and disadvantages of
outsourcing with respect to a number of recurring key issues that are associated with almost any type of
outsourcing initiative. The following are the key issues we would address:
i. Lack of Performance/Cost Comparison Base
-Functions currently performed
-Now currently performed
-Cost to perform
z. Legislative or Labor Contract Restrictions
3. Labor/Morale Impacts
4. Span of Control - Whether or not an organization is willing to give up direct control of a function and/or how
much control.
5. City Furnished Property - Should City -owned equipment/material/supplies be provided to successful
contractor.
b. Level of Anticipated Contractor Flexibility/Commitment
7. Contractor CA -Flow achieved
8. Residual Organization Requirements - What kind of organization does City need to retain to effectively
manage outsourced functions.
9. Contract Administration
10. Contract Type Advantages/Disadvantages
-Long-Term Fixed Price
-One-time Fixed Price
-Cost Reimbursement
-Unit Price
Ell
1. Introduction
OPTION i, NASA DM Method
One potential approach for the City of Fort Collins to consider is the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Backlog of Maintenance and Repair Model. The NASA model is based on parametric
measures and is intended to produce a macro -level estimate of deferred maintenance. Under this model, the
condition assessment surveys are performed for systems (not individual components). Evaluations are made by
performing, at a minimum, a walk through of the facility to arrive at a generalized condition level. Repair costs are
then determined based on the general condition level of the system and its current replacement value (CRV).
0
The NASA DM Method, initially, developed in the late 1990's, provides a consistent, cost-effective, and auditable
approach to estimating facilities deferred maintenance. It determines the level of deferred maintenance and the
facility condition index (FCI) and the system condition index (SCI) within an organization's facilities inventory.
Generally speaking, this method provides accurate deferred maintenance estimates for a large population of
facilities across the organization. Application of the NASA method to a single or smallgroup of facilities may
produce misleading results.
The NASA DM Methods primary purpose is to provide a general measure of the condition of individual facilities
and an estimate of the current work needs for a large inventory of facilities based on their condition. It is an ideal
tool for agency planners to create defensible budgets and allocate resources to the installations level. If budget
creation is the primary objective of an asset management plan, then the NASA method satisfies this requirement,
completely. Adjustments can be made for location and for inflation. Deficiencies can easily be added or deleted
from the relational database.
OPTION 2, APPA Method
A more customized approach for the City to consider is based on the APPA method and is intended to produce a
micro -level estimate of deferred maintenance. Facilities are analyzed at the systems as well as the component level.
The model uses information gathered from on -site inspections to produce a series of sortable reports that
prioritize deficiencies, provide cost estimates to repair deficiencies, and recommend a time frame to repair
deficiencies. These reports provide the client with unbiased information that define and prioritize general
and/or specific repair needs and costs for a ten-year time span. All of the reports are available in a variety of
formats including MS Excel.
The SAPPA Method initially developed at Stanford University in the early 1980's, provides a consistent
comprehensive, cost-effective, and auditable approach to estimating facilities deferred maintenance. It
determines the level of deferred maintenance and the facility condition index (FCI) and the system condition
index (SCI) within an organizations facilities inventory. The basic principals used in this process can be applied to
any scale operation, from a single structure to a facility consisting of multiple building complexes in dispersed
locations.
This type of audit produces a complete inventory of the deficiencies in a facility. This type of audit is adjusted to
address the needs of the client, but generally uses Uniformat II to identify individual deficiencies at the system
and component level. Code and health/safety concerns are also addressed. Locations and photos of each
deficiency is provided, individual deficiencies are prioritized based upon their criticality, and each individual
deficiency is cost estimated with the cost to repair in-house and the cost if bid. Adjustments can be made for
location and for inflation. Deficiencies can easily be added or deleted from the relational database.
8. Fee Estimate
ii. Impact of Deferred Maintenance - How high levels of deferred maintenance would be viewed by potential
contractors bidding
12. Impact on Existing Service Contracts
Each of these issues would be discussed and the key advantages/disadvantages for each presented in a table such
as below.
Labor/Morale Considerations
Advantages/Disadvantages of Outsourcing
Advantages Disadvantages
Cost savings for fringe benefits Low morale during study, decision, and
Transition periods
Cost savings for retirement benefits
Potential service disruption caused by
Affected personnel
Architecture Plus estimates approximately 12o labor hours for Mr. Pack's services to accomplish the above.
47
Section 9 Additional Information
Poudre School District i
Facilities Condition Assessments
Fort Collins, CO
Architecture Plus has been performing facility condition assessments for
Poudre School District since 2003. Initially, Architecture Plus performed facility
audits and cost estimates for repairs on two schools that the district was
getting ready to remodel. Architecture Plus was, again, retained in 2006 to
audit all of their schools and support facilities, excluding only their very newest
schools. Architecture Plus audited approximately four million square feet of
space total. Included in the final report were specially tailored reports. These
reports were useful to the district for the development of their long-range
maintenance and capital improvement plans for an upcoming bond -election.
An educational adequacy report for each school facility was also included and
an existing roof survey, provided by the owner, was incorporated as part of the
report.
Pmgmir.
Audit
Maintenance
Cost Estimation
Slat Cou';oe ,o n D3tos
June 2006 — March 2007
6i/a;
4 million square feet total
Facilities Condition Assessments for all Early Ed, Elementary, Junior High and High
Schools, and Support Services
Classrooms
Media Centers
Computer Labs
Administration Areas
Cafeteria/Kitchens
Gymnasiums/Weight Rooms
Locker Rooms/Restrooms
Auditoriums/Band Rooms
Track and Fields
Concession Stands
Mechanical and Electrical Rooms
Storage Facilities
Bus Terminals
Maintenance Facilities
Roofing- Integrated Report
'Ivontol od
Site — Landscaping, Utilities, Paving, Track and Fields
Furnishings — Playground Equipment, Bleachers, etc
Exterior and Interior— Wall, Doors, Windows, Ceiling or Roof, Structural
Fire and Life Safety
ADA Issues
HVAC
Plumbing
Electrical and Distribution
of F2ecord
Jim Cox - Architecture Plus
Su', CoX) :i!lnnts
Rick Favinger - Mechanical
Richard Harral — Electrical
Christopher Snarr — IT/Database
Coc'ir,_:ci Amount
$320,000(2006-2007)
Contact
Ed Holder
2407 La Porte Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970)490-3412
49
St. Vrain Valley School District i
Facilities Condition Assessments
Longmont, CO
In 2007, St Vrain Valley School District retained Architecture Plus to perform
an audit on all of their school facilities that were over five years old. At the
completion of that report, Architecture Plus was then asked to audit all of the
district's modular buildings. Architecture Plus also integrated a roofing report
and a track and field report into the final report. In 2008, the district, again,
retained Architecture Plus to perform an audit on all of their remaining facilities.
All of the St. Vrain School District facilities are now in their database to be
reviewed and used by the maintenance and administrative staff. Starting in
2009, Architecture Plus will update the St. Vrain audit every three years by
performing yearly audits on one-third of their facilities.
Progmm
Audit
Maintenance
Cost Estimation
Start and Co:n;kr,:on aios
April -December 2007: June -August 2008
sve
3.5 million square feet total
o.I ViC Ei ES
Facilities Condition Assessments for all Early Ed, Elementary, Junior High and High
Schools, and Support Services
Classrooms
Media Centers
Computer Labs
Administration Areas
Cafeteria/Kitchens
Gymnasiums/Weight Rooms
Locker Rooms/Restrooms
Auditoriums/Band Rooms
Track and Fields - Integrated Report
Concession Stands
Mechanical and Electrical Rooms
Storage Facilities
Bus Terminals
Maintenance Facilities
Roofing- Integrated Report
Modular Buildings
Sys oms !nvawmnod
Site —Landscaping, Utilities, Paving, Track and Fields
Furnishings — Playground Equipment, Bleachers, etc
Exterior and Interior— Wall, Doors, Windows, Ceiling or Roof, Structural
Fire and Life Safety
ADA Issues
HVAC
Plumbing
Electrical and Distribution
Aa:hifect of hecord
Jim Cox - Architecture Plus
Sub -Consultants
Rick Favinger— Mechanical and Electrical
Christopher Snarr— IT/Database
Contract Amount
$375,000 combined total to date
Coirtact
Steve Burt
395 S Pratt PKWY
Longmont, CO 80501
(303)682 7262
48
ASTM Designation: E 1557.02 Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework - UNIFORMAT II
CCmtruch.sl
10
101: W1 Anm«Plates
101 ; 002 Caumn Fcurda[ons
lot 1 W3 Do.Mooll,
lot: W4 Expxtcgn R C00.1tt nJstn$
;. 101; 005 F r.ngs R Basxs
lot OOd
101 007 PGime'a 0,1,,lu
101 ; 000 Peimokrinsu!atioll
lot W9 PU Ceps. ..... ........ __.._ _..
101 ,"010 Vf IF d,om, _. _...
Ex W1, Ga¢+alE..AD,n to Redcx L..%-Soo G IOW SA.
ExcWdes Exc.rveL9nferbl.ts SeoA 200. Damst tE¢anVAn
E.Wdes G IW,1l1 uA 2020 BB:oarenf VlaY
102: 01'PY Fo,i,=ons _ . _..... .._. _..
10 W2 Cndo Benms.. _
102: W3 Canzcns
102W5 Doxataln8 _... _... .. __
102; WS.FaH (Ifx1)4'omNlNws —
f02; G05 Olher Fo,.M,n Condiuws _.. ..... ..
Udodos Piz Coos - $es A 1010, Stardsd FcanrlF2ons
103: CO2 SO d r IShv+A G,D.
..
103; 031nA'red SlaE on CY2Ja _.....
10'. W41 nd Slabfl Ged"
103: WS
1031 W,i Pds& B..o _. ....
In m UmbaSty Ornn�o
IOS; WB UA, S11
Exdodos FY,a Ponidros SooGW20.Fl.Finishes
:...: r.: ...
201 W2 Stoot1j.0;n9FIIRConrpScn _. __ _... _. ... ...
201 CO3 Shoevnq, Shan, & Brad09
202; Wi Bnmmxnl\•.SII CUmUustiop
202; 002 Iof I oPrctecWto
202 W3 B,amwt Aalhvlao'I _. ..
xdndes `N^IAM'ro CUaVa ihat Encbu Soo B201Q. Extain Nln4
' � 8j➢10 6 101! WI Expwsa &OonvacUoO.krvnb
s %& 1011 02 E axa.Aous AFlo f ogres
fe B; 1011 W3 rbw Hxaway Syezms _
"BI101 :034 M,$bUv&Decks
1. B; 101; W5 Fb SVudhtod
B; lot; CCS xc,,.J& S!epped Fx
i4 (8lot A71eraS4Ldurl Wo% P Coun`ns Soppxd,rwA
—._
- D IDI 008 R^mps_
8; lot ; G90har fbx Coos.WA
Eev. uLO,A Bca ilg Vnx 4o B 2010, E,Wiol W.&
Exdudos AppLeY& Su,,,,MM Ce.rvJ&Flea Flnksos See C D20 Fbafnshos A C:4W CAt,Foi Sres
Exc!'vdes Sn'r CCaGUtt•at. S90ClJIOS1;Y GarsYlrJiao
EeclWes BixayWaliBRa,`ngs 9oa82010-Ut tol V£,
Crqudas ADAlswos-Suo J,AaoSVUiTyComplaoce-ADA(Coto J, It s Somis requred&lsnotln;ns!allsd cmVshaMM ropued)
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "A"THROUGH"H" E1111doA -c deb Uossee K. is 'ery slaa,aJs_caOiCnlo x,usyae q`ed&is norn nslal�A acxOusmvaitonrep ;0d)
Excludat En wu me�lebYerr,Yn l3 �s ..acL Eovoo ll'r Haa;Jr lColCL f y n aeq3odkmv m ndtd &is nolq s adarnU'SW6LMi[e reP3aM)
50
pzl, I of 15
EcPotlos AOAI Se JA sbEty Comnl nm ADA (GoloJ Isy icroseq oC [Is mfn la kd ore uib Wlbo reparetl)
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "A" THROUGH "H i E awaee _ cmel o seo K,lle�s r ryst a a..-coa (Gotox isy e s equred3 r� sLlm u�lo worn ep �m1
F CNtlos E onmem lie Xh lswas Seel EnWonmenlalH q(Cwl teL(4te aq eMew Gm&I iwl'n Ille<IweanVsbouN YW pm J)
F Xtlo Cmi vlswoa�Se.M E ernv lGo kM Isv a s eouee ltecamn nOm& is ml in
51
Pap 3 of 15
1 1021 WI C910Pas
102; W2 Fx4rx(Teiwla) Root Cenehucbgn _
102 W31"I aSix urel Walls H Cobmis Suppuling Dool
102W4 RaofDWe Slabl&She:Anq
102: WS RavlSWdwal knmo
102: 099 0011Rool Cortshucllon
Excludes Root Cevocnge, See B3010 Root Cover ngs __,_ _.. ........
SAW,, SiyFghls& Rwt Opo,,l, Soo63020, ROWOpanm9s _....
Exdwee stli1c.usorri.Hro
B' MI I W2 Elpicloo, P, Co1V'Miol Jo
B 201'Oo3 Exterior Loalbeving `Nis _ _ _.......
81201VRd Elie,. Loma, S Acm and Ferri ___ _.....
0: At: WE E fonu SOTns lncLdh 9S11esN n9 framinq, Inalabon&Vopox Reterds*s
61201WE E.txW Sln ConVel Dexcas
BI 2011 W% Celery%1M ShoaOiag F11.k1q Inmin6on&VW Rehxdus
B 201 WB PIuapels Chinnmys& EX11,1W Slxks
BI 201 OW Tuck lloln4n9 __ __.. ......
BI 201 : 010 AbminumH F.nlslles ExlenwlNll Canstrucuol _ _ __., ,_...
_.._.
61 201 1 011 6Gck & Exlttbr Well Conswctlon
B' 201 i 012 C mrole&F nlslras-Erfara WaIlConswchon
8,201;013CmlaoloBreBFinishes hxlenwlt.Y,lConshu on
61 POII Otd Glass GlawBlxnft('x glass Extu'ror VYallGonsbagon
B; 201; 015 Gazed ita Extaia Nhll Conswchon
61 2011 016: Sheerro k& Mixture, Exterior Wa9Conc'nre0on _._ _.....
B' 201' 017 Sfe01& Finidlvs Exterior Wa!IConitrucdon
B, 201! 018 Sono Exregorrii Construcbon
Bi 201 j 019 Sluao & Synly,o`.e 51uaa Exlena VJa I COnstruNon
6 201;, 020 Cmru VJXl ConsVucfan Vnyl, Exluar Wall Conrvud'nn _ ._. _..
91 2011 021 V.'oalfl Finishes. Exlena Well Co"Vuaen
62G1: R901La h'dalalHfLtlihesEAala YIaB CBnshu<Inn ___ ____.
Excudes AppledFrt,h. to courc, Fros of Exterior Was Soo C Me, WallFshos
Ex04des Cohunns R6Pamsin Exonor Walls Sea B10.S.,reltudum _
Excludes Venal.n (ends SeeE 20 Fru,oick
Excludes OPer, lnerfor Bun Canrel Oenoes See E 20 Fuciefungs
Exekmas RcelEmesRSoffls-Sea03010 Roof Corain95
W2, Sorconed Openings
R4 Well Cpa Ig Elsner Lletols Sic, Fleshing, elc.
08 Windows&check,
203: w t Emol Percci Boa f•lesfl Fmishos
2,03:Of Frlero' Doa Hvdwac
203: W3
203: W41Clerical D.x
203i 09g GJIY Exterior Docc, HtIg9r 0PN601,lsIR .i5fd1110W15, PF,
txdutivs ADAlsweswoJ, Acaseb lty Complalwo ADq (Go to J, it sy5tW1 srequkoa&Isnot in sn ed ucxl'uclwuWnY bo repaiodf
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "A" THROUGH "H"Exdudos cgdq lssoes5ee lt, OtMsamry sevlaxoscode �Go( K, itsysta srequrea bisnotinindnved acanVsnouVJnY tw rPpxreal
F:xcWtles E enmenla4HenlN luSoft L, Envrenmonlgl llPaN (Cx to ifsystam sroquirodheammontleJ HisAct In In 1 L dacanV9leuN Iba_ldmd
Excuaos E rry11wea-9AorJ EnagyfGOt0kl11 sy srohl iv6Yvan menaad R sralm insta?atla ranVshauNnYbe re aPeJ
52
Page 2 elf IS
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "A" THROUGH "H E,wcss - cotlo iswes-So ktlersatoN Stna as.CMOIc fox kv,- , _-- _ "" t t""" ""----- -11 .enx <��, .,..,.,..
53
Page 4 of 15
10
0 20
13031 Wf Asousftfl Coll'mg Use G ParvsS& rul:hes
303; COR ExpPutl Cpnuete GFnsMs
W3: W3 Wel Ciull, 4 Finislms _........ _.
303I 004 Plolul CeRill,a f"ishex _....
303: W5 Wa&oadC haq&Flashes
_.._
3W : OW Nboa Posited or Slnima 8 PInlsM1es
I °A? I C90 ONor Ce%iys 8. rtmshec
F.Iltd.e finisaes to $Ia35ohis SouC202DStai Fll'Jsllos
101 W2'Paswnga.Eo,rdms ..._ _ _..
101 003 People Lies
101 W4 Wheel Chotbus
01 E:calatws
W2 chnise,Fulllsn. Yrn9f Mxl Ltc _.... ,,
W4 Oulnbxaltws
WS Hoists&Cfanes ..... ._.._ _.
Wi P s, nbc Tuba Systems
WS F 1spcA.mon Systams.
G00 iumL bbs ___... _.... _.
DI 201 WI Sa;laulls
0; 201 ; 002 Didat.
D! 201; W3 D r, Runt, es 9 Sose,
D: 201 004 LavafalCs
_.
n: ROt I W5 Sefory ShofswrfEyemashos
_. ..
DI 2JI I OCs 61o.s
U; 201 ; OW S!nks
D; 220I; Wa mmnH
D KI M Mush Fountains
0: 201 010 Mate. closets
0:201 00 GL 11M, I'llt.s
ENC!1d45 C SC IiOI M.itPl1{Cd.CC $eB D2020�Uum05 NdICI Die'JlbuUan
C.fudes floor tl:bbs. See D 202o, Domostyl"Jaler D,tribuLou
D; 202: WI CoIJ Wata Sanity
D�207. W2 IDuIllWVAll Suppty Eq-plant lnfuls, Ea 1' ie.au'on BC cs Con aNloe COo'fol
1)1202 W3 Hot'Water Sorvica
_... _
0 2021 W4 Insalaw,
_.. __.
D; 2021 W5 Pipasd Fhatgs
0 Z2; M ViiW, ltydfanls, 6 Huss Elbs
Di 202; W> .Weer HaMou.
Fe tlos Ih blgF+cos-Seo02010 lblub,luLLvae
0; 203I W1 PUor Drains
D: 203; W2 Insulator
U; 203; 003 S LryVlasta Eqf pnxnl
0: 203 j W4 Von Plpo & fltti,fs
of 204: Wt Irnaetui,
_.
D 204 002 Pipe Pilings
_...
D 204 W3'Raimvatw Dminage fquipmenl,, , _.. _ ....
D; 204: W4'Roo Drams Piping Wy
Erz4udes RuMlime-SoaS W10[ of Covofingz8lAtt
Exaiutlos C Il SOo .nspcnis-gee BJOtO. Raof Cora nos '
ENch;das ADAlswes SeoJ Aaosxb tyCon pl n<. /DA (Coto J,"I / t 4' d & Mist.,soled orc [.ho. tlnt to pW)
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "A" THROUGH "H" Excludes c tla lsw oa.saa n,Lf fs�.afy st:a:a.�ex c 1 ��.,o n.Ysrsar aY aaee.no n- ta: «<.�+vxho rw m r.rfa:redi-
ENchraes Envr_onmenta4HeaM issues Soa L. Envxonmon11LHaabM1 101toL.rlrystom&roqu4eLrommmonJal8ls not rn inslallatlor oan'UelrouOnY lsa repahed
____-_ x I. Cnm Issues Sea M.H er v to 1.� its st�misr�to 'r rnondM Y.is rat in inslaYeU vcan'bihoukln't Ue mpv!real
54
Page 5 of 15
0 20,002 Decsmave Faint", Ppvg System e. Dossier
- 0: 2W j o03 Gns D dtr but on
0:2M:C04.Inlerceptors ...... _ .__ _.
0 2001005 PwlPpng3.Eq111p1lmd
"0: 2091 000 Speaal Water Ssastms
:'. 0 ,2M 00 Adsc fdher PouaUng Sysems _ ...
Sill Chfl1hdWaar$mp,S,Sysum
002 Coal SupplySYS.q@. _ ..._..
003 Frail Coll Systems
004 Gas Supp!/Sysprn,
A05 NmdVater Supply Sysmn' .__ _.... _... __ .._.
M 01Soppy System,_
M] Bom ExrgYSYiorn
MB Stean Supply5ystem _. .._... ._.. _..
009 Word Enmgy System
09001llm Em9y SupplisYstens
302 M2 Boer Room Pale, B Pto19s
tol 003 Sellers
302: Md hsulahon for Piping 8 Equipment
: 302: MS Pnmary Pumps _.
Ex<:ades E4xNe4 Spxo Vndll sBB,wboxgf IF NU'Heaters Fanavas 8ae03050Tnraim0mirktaUnls
303MI Chmd Water Systamg
_M a02Codmimig Units. _... ..._ _.. _.._. _. _._.
303: MJ Coodng TA.,a
303: COd Deed Expanson Systems
303: MS Evapaato Cranes
_ _.__.
303; OM Itsmatotla Piping BEgmpmont __ _.. ._ _.... _....
3m; W)Piping & Fron9s. _... __. __.... _... ..._...
303: G08 Pnnary Pumps _.. .... ..
Exc!udas Sewndery Chdad VHm Pumps Seo U304009:budan Systems _ _
Cxcntlas Dsabehm Piprgq- Sao D 30400 strbiCn, Systapw_
304 001 Assgtinted Transit Carl., mcfed, convela;focalunits, ilaI Not umis xAa 8 stormun I lwaters
�304:02 Auu ayequipnnent. sash a$sewntlxiypunp heat exchmilars, so nil attanuaWn Avitxahmlwlawn _
304 003 CM1lled Water D!,tionsan
: 304, : fA4 Glyw 0 eelbudap Syatams
: 304: WS Heat Recaiery EguiF ed
304: MG Hot Arai, Dsdibulun _..... __. .....
M4; M] Inw she, la Ppinry Dxts, 8 Equ woo
..
304; MO StmenDiso-ibution sysmts
304: CM Supply& Remm As System. noted Agar h.'ai undowith =is filers dudsnd VAV baser, that hewers induction uns& gull&
304: 010 Ventilators & Exhaust Systems
Excludes E6Ne Gas u OdFired U ttles(.- Sea 030.50 Terminal B Peaage Udls _
Strabane Fmdmma,Gm,uC%l S D.ASr)Tmmiam&P.'rcdage Umis
ExGWes Fbor Ceiling as Roodcp Pxda9e DOAa-Sao D3050,?ermbal&Pxx:go Un is
D305o (b 301Wl Dtdxort BAsgessaes lnphpjog Flue Spas
rD: 306: 032 Elosts Seseboad
p 305: 003 Elrotr oa FOsal Fuel Fred Ax HxWEtg Umberir taros
rD,305;All CNatrm Fossil Poet Fled Unit Heaters, Unit thpastes,& Radnnt Homes
)l 305 005 F., lmegratad Controls
Dl 305:038 Reverts Cyca Water a NrroaNd Termind foal Pwngns _
D 305j,Md SrSCAinved M. orW sr Cooha Floss,CnVg &RoompAirC Mbaxrs 8Heat Pumps
1 D: 305: MB Vlall:;b..,
D:305:009 V.Mo.vm TlxouJM1SIw WaIIAx COMiLbnas, snmatxuwat henOng of any typo ___,
Excludes Piping d.Naeswrbs. Sso U3o40�0nsVlbmron Sy.Gams
[.]we' Hydrone re Sloam Converas Fade eIClass " Sad D 30d0 Cambdian Systems
Excbdos C Od gToners Remolo Ar Coabtl Caxlens re Fvapa'aate Cwlars Sea D3030 Cmsq Ganmahon Systems
Excwao; lu Nod:g UIIIk Ntdl Ondd Hydrencrvegcng seam Cas SeaD30.00sh budon Systems _ _
_ Excdags Air Handlrg Vintivat, Chad Watery Cacl Exponsot Among Cols Seed 3040. DIoninknSysems
Exclvdas ADAlmand SmrJ,Aae1vai8y Complanoa ADAlGo to J,dbystorma bei&[a not in installed or can'vdrea lbompazed)
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "A"THROUGH "H" Escluaes Gemstones seoKLletsaleryslawsda Cade(Go lsid. it snta quired&Cs you nstalled ArcawimmidWbe rapsead) �
blessed, EnvdonmenlAlNeaNlsw t es.3ao L, En�enm radnLl!daM l(ID to L. is,rent luulu:eJ/wwmmended 8isrwdin inatn:ma is, canVdtouNnYharassed)
EDpludos EndrgYlswos-SeeM Enm9y 1C»IO L9 i1..vlots sr ,radhxonismidod815"otin NSLlrtd ar am VideuWnl do roaretl
55
Page 6 of 15
Under the APPA me
It is a time -honoree
1. Introduction
iod, reports are generated by our customized database program, MS SQL Server 2000.
a-
ds options for your organization to use that will provide a multitude of cost saving,
Anities.
Understanding of Requirements
Our initial project focus is always to gain a solid understanding of the issues underlying a project and the
expectations of the client relative to the end product. We always work very closely with staff to insure that the final
product will reflect realistic expectations. The formulation of a project work scope that is as definitive as
possible is an important element of our project management process. At the initiation of each project, we
develop an initial scope and description of deliverables based on our understanding of the client's initial RFQ
and our initial discussions with the client prior to the award of a contract. This work scope and an
accompanying schedule become the basis for detailed initial discussions with the client.
According to our understanding of the proposal requirements, Architecture Plus will, at a minimum, provide
the City of Fort Collins with the following:
An overall survey and condition assessment for 13 city buildings totaling 399,430 SF. Our fee proposal,
separately, includes the assessment of 5 optional buildings totaling 149,446 SF if the City is so inclined to
include them.
2. Either the NASA DM Method which is based on the general assessment of the following nine systems for
each facility:
im
• Structure: foundations, superstructure, slabs and floors, and pavements adjacent to and constructed as
part of the facility (i.e sidewalks, parking lots and access roads).
• Roofing: Roof coverings, roof openings, gutters and flashing
• Exterior: Exterior coatings and sealants, windows and doors.
• Interior Finishes: All interior finishes on walls, ceilings, floors and stairways, as well as interior doors
• HVAC Systems: Heat, ventilating and air conditioning systems including controls
• Electrical Systems: Electrical service and distribution within five feet of the facility, lighting,
communications systems, security and fire protection wiring and controls
• Plumbing systems: Water, sewer and fire protection piping, including bathroom fixtures, and back flow
preventers
• Conveyance Systems: Elevators, escalators, hoists or other lifting mechanisms
• Support Equipment: Specialty Equipment
=Digital photos are provided for deficiencies and their locations for systems rated as t or 2 or where physical
evidence helps to support the rating
305 MCooblg Gmnrdo , Systems
306 003 Eer9Y WrAmiag A Conhol
M W4 EI.It&Voll,11 n95Yslems_
305W5 Heating Ge deVeg SYstems
300 W0 Na gr000 rg AktlPndung Unts _.. _ -.... -.....
3W1 W] Hoods 8 Exhaust Sysloms
�
3All WB i mlr0l Oov cos
3W;099 Olryer Controls&InsYumenla5on
xakdes FAoo.'-duAm%dC,pfep Non dnlegralPat of iamrnnlBP; cktgo Suts SOPp350rT rslAPa:k,ga Uns
JO] COI Ab SYstoms Tmox, A B11,111.1d
307: W2 HW Communderg
301. W3 Pip!nO SYmem iesLng AOnlmbn9
D3090 ; 0j 3W; Wt RYCnrldns _
0, 30. W2 AV Ponfiore
0 M 003 DUA& fume Celladns ... _...
. 0. 30. W4 GBnmal Conehuctlm hems AESOOIaId Mlh Nethp111I !SYstems
0 301,; W5 Pant Spay Omm vou"Idel Systems.. _. ___ __-._ ._.... .__.. ...._...
0; 309; WO Speci !Cooing syve'." evlroP _
D; 3W+, W] slmaPl itnlndt, Coadl
p!3WjUg0 M. U.M1er HVAC Sy..anrsAEqu pmanl
401; W2 Spnnkbr Ho.MsBReleme Dovices _
401; 03 SprukW Pip'mg VaitmoS Molt.
4M C04 S dm*W Pumpklg Equpnvnl
401 BADS Spminkler WPtu Suyply
401 ; Ws Y1dA8m,k1mSdom .... _._ _.
D; 402: W1 F' 8 Egeipmed&Cebue6
D:402:002 Pip gvple, A F,Wugs -...
D 40Zj W3 Punrping Egolpmenl.
01402:004 Smntlppo Equipment
0 402 j005 SI dp poK ter S, P.PIY
0; 403: WI Fsa ExOngushe'Cat nets
0; 403: W2 Fee ExJn9elon.. _ _.. ......
DI nW; ooz Gloat Agent sys`anr
C; 40 : W3 Dry Chombal Sysloms
0 409: W4 Exhaust floi Duct Him P mee on Systems,
OY 409:W5I on. (Amr.tng E.qupmeal -
D 400 I.000 MY'. Olher Fso Pm'ecbrsystems _ _. -. _
1; WI; Wt Bnomo GY001t PNIelt
1 W1W2C dwtd Wring loC wlPPnes
1 $D1 iOOJ EPC'ABBIIC[EU,it LVBOVNs
1 Wt 004 I nterior Df irftton Tmn5lmalef0
1� 501 005 fAin SviltllM:eC
11 501 ;OCO !.bier conoel Contas
1; $01 ; W] Pllmmy TlPnstO.Tle.3
.. ..
1501;C080 nd:.y Translomrers
E Weld, 0fAdoorirensfo,m,m Se0G4010, Efwlrlasl Disblbubon
Exdudos EmINgonoy PA.,- See 0 M. Mer Elmbl'9 sYSams
Wt Oranch WNin98Devvas 1m G91Nng Fixlu:os
W2 DavchW ni for Demces A Equ pmemt CmneaOmrs
003 Exterior Soloing lighting
502: W4 liquid, Finlums
Exclwlos ADAI es Se JAaosN tlyC pt c ADA(So t J lay,pdd x,m ed8 s mAn v stnlaJ In emini 0,, ep ed)
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "A"THROUGH "H Excludes CEee lss seok Llefsarety stendxds cone iGOloh lsy tam srq roa8 snotamslP <d or wnusro-uv be epa ee)
LmlvEos E noanl Pe91111 oL Env ro Illlo J1lGo lol lsy Ey edro da18 10 Ild Vsl orN lhs rep�:ed)
MI. EBf SSUO¢ $a0.1 EnIN GO r➢tI IS 1 5O Btl Y0C4 eJBtlAS lnlnst peA or WnVFIrE: ka1E RfeJl
56
Page 7 of 15
to
of Cal Systems
032 _Court, &Ao9r:rm Sysnnas
003 Data netwxl. n9__. _. ... ......... _.... _.
04 No All Syncows
0351nlacommu+calimaLPag ^9 Systoms__
0G6 Publue Address&Maroc Sys'ems ... _.
OD7 Senvry& Dersuna Systems
006 Sncou Dolecten Alwm SySem._ -.__ __._ ........
009 iTe'epM ao Systoms
010'Tekn9m Systoms
099,CNer Commvnea4ons& Securly Systems._
5001002 EmeyenrylagbLrg.Systens
' S09 Po3 Put Llghen9
509PoV Coa ml JRotectioq Sgsaoms .... _... ...... __.. ._...
Sc9 005 ❑gbtnng Proterson Sysonts _.... __......
1 69: M Poem Facla Co uscUon
ISW 007 Poavar Gerwrbre Syejams
_.. _...
509 COB fiwrnny Systoms _..... __.... .......
sogl 009 UPS __..... _.
j
a409; 499 M1hc Older aHaiarl Sysenrs
Excudes EHCUIC Barnacled So D30%Tanana! &Package See
Excldre E@ci Coik&Duct Houtas- Soo D3040. Dirbibubm Systoms
Excludes S Ang ANomavoad Energyl/wtlonry Syslams See D30S0, Conti Rl ..m memaaon
00S is dryMyClomrirg EFl a cut
033 lbarcanOleF.qugmonl. _...... _.... _. __.
0040sus Cqu!pment
..-.....
(F05'Re,olreenEi
000 S antysl Woll Equperat
007 Tellar&Servie Equlpinanl
08 Voad a9 EquYm'ent__..
Out Eale asboul Equlpmonl _.... _ _. _....
002LMwy Equrpment. _...... __ __..
03' Theater R Stage Equipment
004'InecurnoMal Equ Pmen!
005 Aludes,innal Equlpmmat _. _ _.. _.......
000 Calention Equ:pmonl ._.... _....
007 L bora,ory Egwpmont
008 A'a0 cal Equipment _.... .... _.. __.
OW uWuncy Ertl
002 PxHn9 Conpol Equipment
003 Vabcular SFa,. Egnpme t
Exults: ADAIsw s 811J Aae2 tAuDCo p1 ac ADf (G teJ Isy 1 ire eed&I not ainet ent Fa UocouUnxbl xpated)
NOTE. FOR SECTIONS rA" THROUGH "H' r a des c NNsues Sear nets toy let and cod (GO(e Isya q eda sret n on I«Iw vslao wnxh ep'rM)
6d des t NI lerahil lswes $oel EnwencellalHea0(Cot L. if qat n Is requirdarecommounduci8 is not in irelled or leer tshoudnt be repmred)
Lrados _Ernstqy away See Al Era Co toMfs letucM 4ecanvnentlMB saol--lodacmU.,huuUntbemaod)
57
page 8 0( 15
`, ?�fumbM1l00s
0E20 Peed FumisM1mOs
_
_
E2010
,E;201; ODI 9fntls8Caror WmJow4onlnrenl
i
E�201OW Fxotl AWILp59aaW,
E201003 toed NM1nak _.. _..
EI 2011055 fmd NU Gras&Mots _.__.. _-. ....__. .
E 2011 M Fxea ln'ala Lendman
IAoveabo Pomlehl09s
_
_ _
"d E2020
y
E 202101 Fiep.V,A Acf,,faloe
..,
"
E 202 j.002 N mbBhlerrce Uemurq ng _
Ej.2021003 fambH l/uKple Spabny _.
?
E 2021 C041/orebH Rugs R2Aots
..'
: EI 2021 W5 fkwableWLw'X
t0
; Wf B Ning Aulonrauon Systems
OOB ONer SpeanlCa)Volsx lnsWmanlaaon
lot Inlma Demoton Removal of Exurg mteaa Components _
002 1 la u Domo non 8 Romotlol Romovnl of Ea snny Inlnia Components 8 Remoaal
03 Pa41ft iu Demoh Re no.al al Edsl ryE fetla Cam(wiwnls
04 Pretial Extenu DomoSUonRRemaaob fiomov lol Exisiny Exleriu Compononls Y. RemoOel
dos Ttal BuBny Demolu raRobcaUon-Sm G1020 Slo Do no NonRRevxaLore
01 li nl Of Hazntlpus Ccmponenls _ _.
W2 Eiwa suLuon of Hazadcus Com wn6
E Wos ADAls es Sea J.Aae ZiVCompF n o ADA(Co t J 1 lylt.i 11mgotodA le 11.111, mlltl%d VSM1 Id,A bi, 1.1,nd,
[fEOR SECTIONS"A"THROUGH"H E. des CWOlssue Seo lt, tlasalory &l.nasas Colo (GoloK asys emisrq oax to v yea VSIwuN,1 p ed)
E cuaos E dlal Haalihl os SO LF eonme hl He,M(G Li2a(o segl oahoson endWAsnotin slalkducanV:IrouYlnYte mpa.red)
E A, Energy lsmoe -SCONE ,12 to Alisyl dredYeconmmnded x eW In lnflefei asn Vsholdn't be Log,_ -
NOTE: FOR SECTIOVP Comnwm /h Site Dofmna,,swft3 Tofbepedal fu i uy;n,.uba ao ufed uila ute/raiphypslry Na euaDleGuur/nER, nl{olnar site___
Ooucenae sM1Yll hry Ne fIUILDING NIl1AdER o (Z has Wey aSlo DefciencHs nnreUloJ loalxlsry. __
58
Pays 9 of 15
10
02 To R loralB ThnnNp
_, .—
WI Comp'eto BmB nq_Denw mr ...
W2 Dent%.hel Slte Co ry henh, -_... _.
W3 Rebcauoloi Bnlwxg 8U4CUes - ...,. -....
004 -0tlktios RebcaVon
Cot S,a CrAtl mil Ezcayauon8Fl1 to A4wify Sito Contars __... ,,,, .__.. ... W2 SO StaOi!ixotdn fl heANmnt
Ail Sle
W4 Sne Shann9 __.- __.... _.... .. ._
005 Emb.1,11dn
OCB Eroson Conbal
G 1010 GI 104: W1 Colonel Of Connnnnated Sol
G; 104: 02 Sol Rps.orabcn A 1,hoddiont
Bill 5Aw3 G S M Essed
W2 Cwbs, GultmsBbSns
03 GuwJrnils&BA+lens
W41dwMys B Si;,ege
005'Punted Lines
W1: Bams "Sub -Bosse
W2 CUNs, OraNs, halls 8 B.n ers
COI'Idskings 6 syleo
04 Pilltod Lloos
2031 WI Edging
2031 02E mSteps fl thin,
2031 W3 Pending A SurtacN9 .... ... _
203: W4 Pede ew Otidgos. _ .-.._ _. .........
204: 01 IFonwsBGstns
_..
209 WZFingpoks
204; W3 Foothill. Pools RVJa.mwurus __ _..._. __.... _.... _
204; W4 ! .Innoon"i,uvlres
204 OCS Playground l9opment.'
204! 006 Plarnp Fwvls
2091 W] ROtAp Ig WaliS
204: 008
G41 M Site Equipment- lE. CxNsh. Bertm Sysndo B ThWo Litopment L.ond on Site
204; OIO $,to Folooll,ld .... _. ._. _.
204011 Tertro BPerimoWr Nails
ixdudes
fE cwdos 0.DA lsaes SGe J,Aaesab lft Compfnw AD/(Go of fsysle t smWxed 8lsnot nsl Udac Vde wtll paeetl)
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "A" THROUGH "H Ezcwdes Cod o l s es SodK Dl JS faly SShdwds Calo (Colo re ire s oq eafl morn nvaodacanvshouknYbe epaa1dl
Excwdes E nn enhl HeaN lssuos Seal ErcJ.ronmmtal+fAa.h (GoloL Isys Sn srequ rodtro�mnMed 8ls nol Ulkdaca�Uahooknt bs repnreJl
Frwds E 0 is ei Geo lA Edel,(Go to tl if ylono isaauredtew lmendN85 not in instated a canVUloutStb mp,fedl
f NOTE: FOR SECTION "Go COnmont AI S oDoWhd.do NU 0'ei NO l.deet olluifaaely shall be oe b0.od 111V11he DaNyppong OO BUILDING NUNBER.AIIOOer Slo
D F o 'osshallh OUw BUIIDINGNWBER 0 Z o. as No ae5 oDefciolwies unreated toafxikl.
59
Page 1 D of 15
E cWUos ADAI wes ceeJ A.e brQy Canpl. ADA (Go I.J t s,Mm, notl NstplOUacxn Ed M YM f J�
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "A"THROUGH "H ga Ml blkjWa.�
Excq Ues C fill NI S C[ on lIH IIM1 (GofoL rtsys.um sres cdk.,,.mdW el not in alkJ Vh uwntWrePrt:Mf_
Ex lWdes ERVOY Lwos -SooF E ay(Go to M, ifs Mnl sr r OU n eWo& sno 'n'ns Yetl i VS w Ylre a aaoU
NOTE: FOR SECTION "G" comment nn_s to Dofido faoswm'n3 o•ofmhime¢rof Uofx lry sha{b m DfM mmo(a fq by us ENO Bmt:�nc xur.aE2.Auoinei site
___ Defdendes941 Dxm U9 BUILDING NNlbE2'0'(Zao)ns ufnr St Do lon hulry.__
60
Po9c 11 of 15
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "A" THROUGH "H"
NOTE: FOR SECTION"G" ! Comamt AH sle Oal pm:de;vAth'30of Noirerilwtmol thetrc�xhrli bo tlo ulSapUlhefptitty byuslly tho MAILDINGN@J_LER_. a"O "'
___. .. __ i � p G,aallues Nlril brve aw tlUILDING NUNBER'0'ILvo) rslhoy vo 5la Doflcierw:esumula.td to a(.xl4y
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "A" THROUGH "H"
omnwnt
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "H" AND "J"
d 1ti Building or Site lsauos
JIO rMA4onwtne•D{p4 IJ
s4 ASfds ,
JN010 : AIC
_
) J 101 WI ADAC.auua
k
J 101 002 R,roA0)PxylU$gn'. tr%0 10 A5t8L)
CSC
54'
_ IIV 85W 26 y. 501 I5J 1004150i2006300]40086009fM.2h IJax 2Wl ly SJeCACrt
'
t 1 A'C
J lot WJIRAmpsPt Flq Cwb CUUAneee Rare (Fig 11 121316101I,3n)
L�
JO IJax le ill wJb Bsl 0 112 slopeFJb d 3410 J8'IOnrcVn&W111n exf Wll Me non.np2nm W(190 o1et1iwl
ND
J 101 W41Ckvl BPI tlxm LAW Ifg20212229 socE004 tp '
.r 1yyR S
_ 14n (a y sldo dow43dx5888'.81 Ie doa On an for doa prg cwtllGs 42 ttllow ,_
iy f,4 N£
a lot W5 DarSPas sgoWfllatNrtArvwuv n9pw1ws1F 91284 $b Ood tqb 245 Z0AI 1$d0)
P
`8f� t NC
31 olew J to d d Warner Istlo GIttkW lwado pn_ ( 0.oP I)Nry tlbslm 4l fl elodlegll e[es nd 8 ado _
J
1 1
I
IOt do D. liiawva(soGex1413)
y,,�"1
„� to p 0 U..bygdpll IOI IMk sb I II ladlagllf I Ida�rlorvs V4 n 801 noxl Il Mher aaore
J t01 W]�91 5101 18 f9
rols�mre one
u drak lead
J @ml ope e,g p_3 re
101 W3112 '
s.rm (Ip28;2B 3031323934,8E 3637 yAB Ay All)
idkfs d _ik, rw msossd.,pp 1 IeaWlyS ack.o tlDk& ga! _, ......_ _
J 101 W9 D k gfa.wdue(Fq V)
tlr 3 1. I tl651 r d
1 NC�
J 101 010 Toroplwnos 16944q in ---
,'^''ooatx,nVuua
mnlrol(arpl of o for 41 awn.. ,rul paddds
J I ji Gil l Hly4 1Gg43 b. d)
5.. 1
__ SPo one lnQ Ne lellesY81n21gh Wal _
—�
YJ AfC
J 101 012 Santa, Tablet, Counters & SleirgShadaat. AMoral (Fig Me a b,45,46, 63 5456 x)
C y y
0uilrefinudasling M Ah sa 8ryllw pl I IMI 2OW41 k 2>I JOlrrf9tl _
4
;� 1 NC�J
101 0131R d&Cksa rsggbb A3s)
4811 a.,lomsd(gon 641 done 616bUv oM,Iwwud ee09ro sWoreerL
NC�
J 101 014 I1po IJ 8 Fbo' SWfaas (9 don4 )
T
_f H( I Ilp(l llgl�Z JIAmdS IMMIIN KYa dW (1 I01/4' > b 11 MJP W/O adga(OP IP 11 lh V4 W laalif 2
jJC(3i
_
101l 01e �"ano(SeNwnA28)
Go led -"a noes_ oeboo s meehg oo u I i lobbks Itl any War,rvenlw use
S A(C
J lot PA IOd. ADA llea16
Commanl (AII St Drcel'uos 1U a OolOagninl o10o h. ny Na!I bobe 4faN IM10( fhby elg NO BUIIDINGNUN8ER A8 oJlors'o�
NOTE: FOR SECTIONS "H" AND "J" IDr aAa,rih,w:«e uw WILDING NUMBER o Coal aslnae SInaaennrie oanm t", fr ;N ---
61
ReVe 12 0f 15
NOTE: FOR SECTION"K" comment nu stO Dofdo Gos um o ooruw pNtmet«mmofx,4rysbMaaanbrw �xm Nofazt ryny nquw aNwtlq t3 mlar lol «ss Der�anrae,@
61 Id oUOBUVJbIB frU b0 4 ZNU). nStl10 MU 5008fFI0rk 06 nUnloll lU JIBG9(1
NOTE: FOR SECTION"V" Comment nnSloDefrtnGesoiHn3 0'ofUwnenmoforofUel=4f��loutnWe4UedrmOelwthbyuvngt4NM-,njNumbx.allomxSneoef
¢hillhnve the Dllao9 YumbN'o'fLera) nfimo ne$ile Oofa Vb xo ro4.etl toWfwk
62
Inge 13 of 45
Issues
g a d CM1 &'::,•Coot' y T revs' 8'Faas'Z
'Ch 'Coos gTu.s' EWVAC')
102; 02 tInsule3on E Wualloriiation
I Roo4ml14 cwllrgs, exams' &b1-11,11 walls, Pori &.1111. Ai llyhmeos@doves&Madam, leave inking @ Geoln'ng, du has
�ohf IOelle( 'Toni tlgo yl oxtertw rNls, Ooa oFrgs &soQ ro'� 5ols o[IefsB ax .pales sug epehav ll wS P, Anripor olc.
102: M3 IHoa'sg aCwing
Rrernladafsolhhgs,"I'lloalabb llwulalst dear fillers deanrvaroni111,1tns,ealfWaolloatws,& lndalae,IrorJrrsldonb a'ona0mlas,
fee usoofA'i(d.o.. bash,& Wher a"'.'k.w-"as slide aonH thew- &dosed M nkdhltolbidnfile (oullalue, dos u1.ieedwmes,
mrgyolscaol hes0iwsoo13r0og1MnloA ENERGYSTAR) S R ergy Guido labols RopmlyaNadhaGq e. Nspq egnipnrenl n0l0pe/aln mme
alOdauliy ReepheM ssua,aame0y Wes flis 111-ouOVal Nootlwrd"I'llg In shade-1 bldnoflif.k ai flow. ChIO dulls for
MksDlmllopesh osV have UL lap. Oudsshould be hlseWed.. yMPmabd v,ovberdev ouMe ouldde of (Ix Insulasso w wesay duds
Il deddedyls usotl lmhw(soaw inifa'I wl eneryµeHxlant Gonlpunlp-nrod elbcenOnnrodern'e dimdCs. TlysaL,ao N'aflvRo nuts &
9rmmd sevrw. Do not set hxk heM pump's fllennnslM manlnSy ild raurvs lbo olschk msklanco to cones am exwnsM_Coon limao
Solro OOMirgE wolny ssa'oybs. Plese lager, innlle!etl rvlrAeWs on seuPldadlg woks andlwaZy fhermd aeoN, on lloa a woksdoso(e If.
i Wbtlo'ws. For.1ug pop. r.a of ouslef, sandx-irdows mlluo�fhelueaels. Kew soull, Isirg glass dew. Ne ab,ls blarking srml!yld
Iesufoodc'nlail5 to "too heal a nglll.
Feellacos.Ail &soul nnUnasoddllmnoy Pua. Haop donpml ctosad uhwurm in use. OprnwLwlaw when using wrnolAlonal Wopin:a. h.sal
( e"adek." heal . oxchrngo syslow lob!owheut lwsk Info lire loon:. Roper seat. Poo dmrpec Add cause, wound Me Noi howls,
102100E ;W'ala Moxung __-- _----
RopailouEylaow(s, llenlot wivafenWe, M'A' & plp>ry bnl deny cOVC/ Iboufas, Lfup, bolfwn,m5is ...a Peasewnl. Usso.aRe"
flo1V f.fal.lf & shower/roads. Usefew, el lh'al we!aeft4eh IM {IiOalwslad 10-1E )Vas Loms/wo!»hofllN lenryaelwo lofl5•. II
boe0ny wl ekdofty& the midbld/w:...rile aonarkrinslNll,"solruwhere heater f"mi d Sy ses. Refs,& Cetificd ,, fSRGG) m the Fkllde
So WE, i a,vynl�FSEGJ
_ICot02� OOS IWintivas
j Tryh(Ptlugsfmm uinMwsw double glnfng, cWo wirrdawwserirgs Mnghp open nindo'vcosc/iysin wkl mealhor loom! sue, NUSC ULxbw
Is ..he's daury smnnrer fo keep sun orF, u'h:o'winrbW<oserinys to mPecf Ireol, o:mhwys arsartb, eazf &'n'rsf fndg Mndovs, opply Gea,.al
E on saMming BindVa (*'educe seluyda Nevndndovrs w'fJflllom4Fdoashehbn RMug CauuN g FRC), InvalleofOJS m Lv'bwlu wNOUnrMos,
� dr fools lwogs of 0_3 CNA w loss ENERGY STAB JI 6 L
IOt GW ILunduatinh ----
The's Yml loos, look fla., ion. rest mIcr1A'rfypinmd. W"s poude ehadmy 4 eals'l sees & chatsdi Maids Fe/xes, me%olba nearby
bum"gi &rows olhaos'.dress bkck a Jrwa'dWe wr.M.Uod:es of wooG liakise, bepernlure 5& PeNease iref,34y&prodll oglue. Light
(_pa4 1 II `Is bCO(dd k 5 bsl o0l TeeO _ula&aaCINdIIr_el..1,
flyMse(W.... uetuuso, hselooU,hen, (lose Wnybnrps, us&saR sa(IAlorescenfsuaPs(CFL's). Use daylgblilg as much aspwsibk by
"elglgbbroUnv{ ball u . cudaha, use CFL fwdr$re y'lures(ul haUgen). C-NERGYSTARk9Lvbst Oaltloor lG1119 an plrolowll, hoer cr
10001Appianws
On rOsimashar, check Iw lu(wnal heMbg elenranl fo h%ow sa(Wg wde/lwolerlo If5', rohigemlw wletlemMlc moISfero Gueneslno( sub.st. set
Itanhwahue e93]•l0 40'.SYol Yaozw. sONS Nolryhl. dean mndenx wNs. Ranyo/os'an rW elAeolNe,e.&Irlc gnllun systonl. gas lv/Shea PNnes,
LIfaIICPOG(US dB NI.USC Slnarl flplrkanw5(m sII1CN OW(ds. lAN p'eAYr/BLO[RCIS'&OInfOWON 01V0i{V(KII PIX IOMIOI LIOIIMSIII wad ll'0!Cr, GONI
or SW Issues
y ' ' j
7diO3D A M; 103: 001 Wntlon
A M 103 002 D.
�.....
A; M: 103:: W3 Ca 41p
,'
g
nll __..
A AI 103 009 Wes... —
..,
A %i 103: COS Rcof _.... ..
A}Al: 1031006 Sto..pA.a �.
j a �
A Al f03; W] Sh pp nq RRecWMq, _
_
M 103! M OWnw4on ..._ _._...
f
M M 103000 Fc Nan
s
!d M f03I 010 HaWGxnora4al ,... ...
M M. 10 : off HeatDi NM, on
•` „3
Y�1 M; WJ:OII Coofng>rnorauon.
IO
M tl 1W"013 C.oiq Ds4�bu6'on --_.
— —..
Et11W;01A Ewu iM Powot Cis9ibu0on _.. .... _...
it
M M, 103 : 015 Hot Water 8.11x
'i.
M AI 103: W Compossdk
Oitl V.atcr
t
i
14 M 103:010 PmnocH.,&, _
"r fr
A -IA: IN OW 1 anyq'telion _.
'A M E.M: 103: M MN EnONY Imms
NOTE: FOR SECTION" ' T .1 P. Wfi fan OM oeaxm,rta "Ith m 1.1V ty e N. oidl.A rl rhx Ai u_e<. saxo wegces
[ _ h IIh„o Nx3�M",n N loll O Qero), au y •u silo Dni6 enao nw.a,aa loafalty
64
Page 15 of 15
FACILITY SUMMARY DATA 12/04/02
Una farm required for each buildina.
DATE:
SfTE NAME: PHOTO NO:
BBSs"" .prl:,'
6LD13. NO:
BLDG. NAME:
ISURVEYoFL
1. Type of Construction:
2a. Roof Type: _
2b. Year Installed/Age:
/
2a. Remaining Life:
2a. Roof Type:
2b. Year Installed/Age:
/
2c Remaining Life:
2a. Roof Type:
2b. Year Installed/Age:
/
2c. Remaining Life:
So. Number Floors w/o Bsm't & Penthouse/Attic:
3b. Basement: Y or N 3c. Basement Occupied: Y or N
_
43. Penthouse/Attic: Y or N 4b. Penthouse/Attic Occupied: Y of N
Sa. Category/Type: Sb. LISI.ALL Activity or Primary Functional Use(s):
6. Brief Nanifive f ALL Architectural Deficiencies:
-
y
7a. Facility size in square feet:
7b. Todays cost to replace facility.
$
8. GIS (Location at front entry): $ Latitude:
° Longitude:
1a. Type of HVAC system:
1b. Year Installed/A e:
9
/
ta. Remaining Life:
1 a. Type of HVAC system:
lb. Year Installed/Age:
c. Remaining Life:
1a. Type of HVAC system:
1b. Year Installed/Age:
/
le. Remaining Life:
2a. If Boiler, Location of Boiler Switches:
_
2b. If Boiler, Location of Circulating Pump Switches:
3a. Fire Sprinklers: Y or N 3b. if Yes, Full or Partial 3c. Location of shut-off:
Be. Monitored by Approved Central Station: Y or N
- Be. U Yes, Name/Phone b:
/
4. Standpipes: Y or N
Sa. Size of Gas Service:
Sb. Location of Main Gas Valve:
Be. Size of Water Service:
6b. Location of Main Water shutoff:
7a. Hazardous Materials: Y or N
7b. If Yes, is it: Combustible Liquid &/or Flammable Liquid&/or Other.
B. Brief Nardtive of ALL Mechanical Deficiencies:
N
ta. Size of Service:
1b. Year Installed/Age:
/
1c. Remaining Life:
ld. Location of Main Electrical ShutrofF.
Is. Electrical Service: Overhead or Underground
2a. Fire Alarm Panel: Y or N
2b. If Yes, location:
3a. Fire Alarm System: Y or N
3b. If Yes, Type:
40. Fire Control Room: Y or N
4b. If Yes, location:
Sa. Heat & Smoke Detectors: Y or N
Sb. If Yes, Full or Partial
6. Intercome: Y or N
_
7. Security System: Y or N
7b. If Yes, Name/Phone #:
S. Brief Namove of ALL Electrical Deficiencies:
CCMK/A+ Facility Audits "Audits Plus" 0 11/ 10199
Facility Summary Page 1 of I
t. Introduction
3. Or the APPA Method which includes a much more comprehensive assessment of the same nine systems as
well as close to 800 individual components. (Fora complete/istsee Section 9ASTM Designation: E7557UN/FORMAT//
Forms). The benefit of this method is individual deficiencies are identified at the system level as well as the
component level. Individual deficiencies are prioritized based upon their criticality and each individual
deficiency is cost estimated for the cost to repair in-house and the cost if bid.
• Structure: Sub -structure, foundations, standard and special construction and slab on grade. Basement
construction, basement excavation and walls. Super -structure, floor construction, roof construction.
• Roofing: Roof coverings, roof openings, gutters and flashing
• Site: Roadways, parking lots, paving systems, landscaping, wells, irrigation, lighting
• Exterior: Exterior walls, windows, doors, and fittings. Exterior coatings and sealants.
• Interior: Interior finishes, wall and column, floor and ceiling, partitions and doors. Stairs and ladders, stair
and ladder construction and finishes
• HVAC Systems: Energy supply, heating and cooling, distributions, terminal and package units, controls and
instrumentation, system testing and balancing
• Electrical Systems: Service and distribution, lighting and branch wiring, communications and security. Fire
Protection, sprinklers, standpipes, specialties
• Plumbing systems: Fixtures, domestic water, sanitary waste, rain water drainage
• Conveyance systems: Elevators, escalators, hoists or other lifting mechanisms
• Equipment and Furnishings: Commercial, institutional. Fixed and moveable furnishings
• Special Construction
• ADA, Life Safety and Code concerns.
• Environmental Health concerns.
• Energy concerns.
E Digital photos are provided and their locations of every deficiency.
4. Facility condition index (FCI) and the system condition index (SCI)
5. Deficiency and repair data and cost estimates for each facility
6. Maintenance and repair/replacement data exportable to MS Excel.
7. A detailed short term repair and replacement plan for each facility (through zoll)
• Correction of unsafe or hazardous conditions
• Correction of Code and or ADA violations
• Building systems life extension
• Reduction of maintenance costs
J
S VSTEM•Circle ONE box Off(LY' for'Co yT i'&,Io fl 'D'boe ON
A. Sub B. Shall C. Interiors D. Servics E. Equipment& F.SpecieI G. Sitework& H. Comments or J. Accssibility K. LiFe/Safely LEnviron-
structum Furnishings C.nstruclion& Total Bldg Demo No Deficiencies Compliance AD Cod. -Security mental -Health
1 2 3 4 a 1 Bond Dom. - 6 J Found a 9 to n
M. Energy COMPONENT - Enter ONE component number ONLY fo;EACH deficency: i.e: I., Cooling Towers"enle5'D-303. 0,,'QNyY". ENTER LETTER
Cacti ... nl Number: Detailed Description of Component;
12..___..... _.—_ __....
. Chock box it this v nt. I,.. (Used for Sytoms F thru MQLJX)&mvkoouroth.tIf. BLDG/SITF NO. 1,'o'(.or.) for sit. Chock box for'Additonvl Study Fun Sugg.Oed'.I
No Deficiencies Found (Cirou QNE.f tho followiry boxov or fill ie efist'Olhor� Aah/SWCO Mechanical [l.dri<vl Civil ADA Othon
LOCATION(S)/ S I Z I N G- For extcns,c l3toeusa back side of this loan
PRIORITY %(Enter l or 2 >'s MAX)
CAUSE p ONLY)
5RM REQM'TS0 ONLY)
M/R TIME LINES ONLY)
1. Health/Safety Issue
1. Age/Wear
9. Energy issue
Su r IN n�� ntsr0vu rabUti
la. Immediate Critical
318 East Oak St ... t
.......... ................
2 Bld•/Site Frncton ko.o
6
.........
2. Weather
....
ho ADA sue
1. PM/Minor Rpri A.Obsoleto
.......... ti .................
16 DeferteA IJ cessar
fort Collins CO 8o52A-2915
................. .................. ..................
3 Syssem/Co I onent Issue
.................
3 S smic
e
(n Code 'rue
_....... .....
2 U ,check le 15 U Cl Hoge
............. .....................
2 To 1 V.ar Ptentiall, G tical
970.493.1220
... ......... l .................
A0 ndurtiv ly/ Op rating$ 1
.......
A ct/Anim IIt2
.......
Healtb'ssl
........
r P.&R 6 Policy
3 MvpP.
3 2t 3Y vs I n wd
"J0 Fax: 9224d314
s Mir, Rep /R II tS
5 Design
his S it, issue
1 ( t s1;nPl'
A 4t 9yor" p Ing
UPLC9X®aplusorch pp5q
6 D nbleUlluill, V I Issu
G I t Il.Oon
[lA U k own
la N glect
8 6 to to Year, R ne m]ed
J N '1811A.
9 L lg h,ed
b G 4t tl em ( p l t I ,—V,t
A• Audit Consultants
8 Abr se
.-
r tJ/4 N Apvl 11
Idelping you succeed
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE REPAIR, IF ANY
1. Sbort Tcrn
2, Long Term
........ .......... ..............
.......... ................. ._.....
.. _........ .................. ...........
....._.....
..,........... .,.
........
..,. .......... ,..
..........
..........
..._............. ..........
.................. ........_
.......... . _...........
.................. ...........,.....
................. ....._...
........... .............
............. __..... _.
.,.._.,....... ..................
........... ............. -..
COST 'REFERENCE (Bara H.St Costs Total)
QUANTITY
UNIT",
TOTAL LABOR i TOTAL MATL
TOTAL LABORS
TOTAL EQUIP
TOTAL COST
GROSS COST
(Means Number) -
- -
-
HOURS U-e of COST -(A)
COST It 3)�COST
psi)
(BARE COST)
(TOTAL COST)
IS
115
S
IS
1
I(
�t
5
5
1. Adddionzl
..... ..... .....
I .....
`
...
..........
5
S ........
IS
S ._...
.................
14
Study Fee
.. ...
..
...
_..
5
�S ...
5 ...
S ....
$
IS
�5
is
is
Po Jed Cost.
S
5
I
1
5
s
IS
5
3. BudgetSLit.
5
s
IS
5
(Seldom Used
...... ........ .....
....
......
..... ... ...
5
.......
S
_......
5
.......
f
I".
.............
5
._......
S
...........
1
5
$
MARK-UP%
It Time:
2
13. Ha, Mal Disp:
A. Material:
• If you am dooumnnene Owner suanlied data list all of their sources of information. List the o.—,rB) & their sourc.(s) of info'shimc to that d'66"i v. Enter info on back of this form m erid are
Inds that can be used: EA., S.F., L.F., SY, SO., C.F. LS., LOT
Jim Cox • AIA, LEED
Accredited Professional
In 1970, Jim founded Architecture
Plus. In 1986, he added facility au-
dit -consulting services. Since that
time, Jim has documented building
material and equipment deficien-
cies for more than 300 million
square feet of buildings in over
3,800 different buildings types.
These buildings have been sub-
jected to the impact of diverse
environments in such locations as
Alaska and Florida including loca-
tions in between. The materials
and details used on Architecture
Plus architectural projects are
based on information derived from
these on - site, hands-on
performance evaluations.
Jim actively participates in the
audit process as an Auditor, Team
Leader, and Principal -in -Charge.
m the field offacldty ccndrtion
assessments.
CLIENT LIST
ARCHITECTURE PLUS' facility audit consulting
services are international in scope. Audited facili-
ties include the FAA Technical Center, Atlantic
City, NJ . U.S. Mints, Philadelphia, PA; Denver,
CO & San Francisco, CA . Adams 12 School Dis-
trict, Metropolitan Denver . Poudre School Dis-
trict, Fort Collins, CO . St Vrain Valley School
District, Longmont, CO . Poway Unified School
District, Poway, CA . Health District of Northern
Larimer County . Wyoming Schools Facilities
Commission . Colorado State University . City of
Fort Collins, . Colorado National Guard . All
State Government Buildings in Wyoming; . Cecil
Commerce Center, Jacksonville, FL . Camp Le
Jeune Marine Corps Base, Jacksonville, NC .
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, Oceanside,
CA . Point Loma Naval Station, San Diego, CA .
White Sands Missile Range . City of Berkeley,
CA . State of Oregon Prison System . State of
Washington Community Colleges . Navy base in
Adak, AK . Numerous other Navy and Marine
bases throughout California. and Arizona.
i ARCH(VIE-"c RE ptI1S T'
318 East Oak Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524-2915
Phone: 970-493-1220
Fax: 970.224.1314
1603 Capitol Ave., Suite 205
Cheyenne, WY 82001
Phone: 307. 632.9903
Fax: 307.634.6468
Jim Cox - AIA - LEED Accredited Professional
Email: jimcox@aplusarch.com
www.apiusarch.com
ARCN.ITECTt1R.E'-PC'17S ti
FACILITY ASSESSMENT
SERVICES
MAINTENANCE
MANAGEMENT
PLANNING &
PROGRAMMING
OPERATIONS
MANAGEMENT
The ownership of real property necessitates
an investment in the present anda
commitment to the future,
Proactive facilities
management demands
that the assets be well
maintained to operate
adequately and cost
effectively and to pro-
tect their functionality
and quality.
MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT
Architecture Plus provides maintenance con-
sulting focused on protecting and optimizing
public, private, and infrastructure invest-
ments by enhancing resource allocation deci-
sion -making. Client support is offered in the
following areas:
• Condition Assessment Surveys
• Code, ADA, Energy, &
Environmental Surveys
• Building Commissioning
• Life Cycle Costing
• Storm Damage Assessment
• Inventory/Bar Coding
• Maintenance Planning
• Preventive Maintenance
• Manitainability Analysis
• Personal Training
• Information Management
OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
Architecture Pius provides facility and public
works management consulting focused on
analyzing and enhancing organizational man-
agement and operating procedures, and opti-
mizing operating efficiency and cost-
effectiveness. Client support is offered in the
following areas:
• Operations assessment
• Performance Optimization
• Support Contracting
• Cost Analysis
PLANNING & PROGRAMMING
Architecture Plus assists clients in establishing
programmatic requirements for facilities and
infrastructure, planning for the development
of new facilities and optimizing the post -
occupancy operations of facilities. Client sup-
port is offered in the following areas:
• Facility Requirement Studies
• Facility Programming
• Post -Occupancy Evaluation
• Environmental Management
Physicalproperty
mustbeproperly
maintained to
provideasafe,
healthyand
productive
environment
Process & Results
The United States General Accounting Office
(GAO) directed a national research of industry
experts, large corporations, universities and gov-
ernmental agencies to identify the best practices to
Prevent the deterioration of facilities. Our facility
assessment services comply with the identified
practices the GAO recommends to best extend the
life of physical assets. These include:
• Standardized & documented inspection process
that provides accurate & consistent results
• Ongoing inspection of assets validated at prede-
termined intervals
• Standardized, industry cost estimating system
• User-friendly information management
• System that prioritizes current & anticipated
maintenance & repair requirements to maximize
the use of resources
Architecture Pius tailors the audit process and
services to meet individual Client needs and then
selects an audit team and report format that is best
suited for the project requirements.
We use a time-honored relational database pro-
gram (not a static spreadsheet) that generates a
variety of reports. These reports provide the Client
with unbiased information that define and prioritize
general and/or specific repair needs and costs for a
five-year time span. Options to the report are nu-
merous and the Client has the option to access and
update their audit database using the Internet.
The deliverables include a CD Rom containing the
report in a relational database format that is ac-
cessed through a Window based PC. Information
generated by this report can be integrated into
most CMMS software programs.
Our team of "hands-on" professionals is ready to
help you with your facility maintenance needs.
1. Introduction
• A determination of what funding "floor" is necessary to perform day to day maintenance and repair
functions
8. A long term repair and replacement plan for each facility (2012 - 2016)
• A yearly repairs and replacement forecast for building components using facility life cycle costing and
analysis of building component life as a basis.
9. Assistance in obtaining LEED Gold EB designation for 215 N Mason and the City Hall office buildings.
Optional Services
10. Staffing Analysis
• A review of current operations and staffing
• Recommendations to improve service and efficiency
tt. Privatization of Maintenance Functions
12. Electrical Phase/Load readings and infrared readings on distribution panels
The Final Product is Never Final
L
ttp.R�,,,,
Keep in mind that no matter which method the City cho(
reports do not become a doorstop at the end of the
continuously for presentations, on their website or in a bro,
5
NASA DM method or APPA method) our
ct. Many of our clients :use our reports