Chapter Four
Inventory Management Information System
Proper inventory management of the facilities under the care and control of the Department of Public Works requires four basic conditions: 1) adequate and timely information; 2) the capacity to produce accurate reports; 3) management analysis; and 4) proper oversight and performance monitoring. The program review committee found deficiencies in each of these areas.
One of the most striking problems within the department's facilities management function is the complete absence of a structured, automated management information system. The "system" that exists is disjointed and ad-hoc. As a result, management reports and analysis are scant, planning is limited, inventory figures may not be wholly reliable or accurate, and performance oversight is focused on operating budgets and not overall performance. The Facilities Management Unit needs to build an entire system for collecting, maintaining, reporting, and analyzing information for the management of properties under DPW's care and control.
Inventory Data Collection
C.G.S. Sec. 4b-1 requires the Department of Public Works to maintain a complete and current inventory of all state-owned or leased property and premises, including space utilization data. C.G.S. Sec. 4b-24(1)(A) requires DPW to compile and maintain comprehensive and complete inventories of all improved and unimproved real estate available to the state by ownership or lease. The actual compilation of the inventories under the latter statute may be done by the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) as long as the information is made available to the public works department.
The inventory created by the Facilities Management Unit is separate from DPW's full compilation of all property owned or leased by the state. The information collected by the committee for this report focused on the inventory compiled for facilities management purposes, and not the broader DPW inventory of all state-owned or leased property.
Only within the last several years has the Facilities Management Unit begun developing and formally tracking the inventory of the various properties it is responsible for managing. DPW informed the committee formal tracking of the unit's inventory was precipitated by the policy shift to begin having private companies manage properties under DPW's care and control. This shift occurred in the mid-1990s and continues at present. Private management companies are currently responsible for managing approximately 6.8 million gross square feet, or 92 percent of the total square footage under the department's jurisdiction.
DPW facilities management database. The current "database" of facilities inventory information is contained in a basic spreadsheet format. It includes general information about the properties DPW is responsible for managing, such as location, gross square footage, useable square footage, property manager, contract term, and type of property managed.
Throughout its five-month study, the committee had a difficult time collecting consistent data on the properties under DPW's care and control. At times, the department produced several different inventory lists with varying information. The facilities unit and the finance unit (which requires the data for budgeting purposes) also had different figures in some instances for the same properties. The committee believes this signifies a lack of coordination and communication between the two units since they both need to use the same figures.
The committee also found the square footage figures used by the facilities unit do not necessarily represent the most current information available because there is no formal system in place to regularly collect such information. Inventory square footage figures are considered the "best available numbers" derived from various information sources. Some of the information has been passed down from year to year or obtained from the various private companies managing the DPW properties. Even figures for gross square footage, which should be the most accessible to obtain, are not considered wholly accurate by the facilities unit because formal measurements have not always been taken. As noted later in this report, the department was unable to produce any inventory figures for the early 1990s, further signifying the department's limitations in maintaining a completely accurate and reliable property management inventory.
Space remodeling/reconfiguration. No formal program exists to capture or regularly update inventory information to account for space reconfiguration or remodeling. Often times the space under DPW's care and control is changed due to agency or programmatic requirements. There is no system in place, however, for the Facilities Management Unit to update its inventory accounting for the changes. As a result, the committee was informed the gross and useable square footage figures maintained by the unit are not definitive because changes made within DPW-managed buildings are not consistently recorded in the inventory database.
Capital repairs. The Facilities Management Unit began a formal program this year to collect information on the extent and potential cost of necessary capital repairs to buildings under DPW's care and control. The program is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
The committee believes the mere fact that such an important component of the overall facilities management function is only now being formalized shows a previous management lapse, resulting in a lack of information necessary for proper planning, budgeting, contracting, and oversight of the department's inventory.
Health, safety, and fire code information. Health, safety, and fire code violations are initially sent to the commissioner's office. From there, they are disseminated to the facilities unit for correction. For properties with private managers, the unit notifies the managers who are responsible for making the necessary corrections of the violations. Once the violation is rectified, DPW forwards a letter to the inspection agency specifying the problem has been resolved. If the situation warrants, a formal plan of correction may be required.
Health and safety data for buildings under DPW's care and control are kept in individual building files. The facilities unit does not maintain the information in any type of central database. As such, fire and safety code violation information and occupational safety and hazard (OSHA) reports are not analyzed from a macro perspective by the unit.
Based on conversations with facilities staff, the number of violations received annually is minimal. Further, the commissioner's office is aware of any violation because notices are initially sent through his office. Given the limited resources of the inspecting agencies, inspections mostly occur at residential facilities and not non-residential office buildings.
Movement is being made by the facilities unit to begin centralizing its code violation information. The unit just filled an environmentalist position and the person is starting to develop a centralized database for environmental issues within buildings under DPW's care and control. The code violation information will be part of the database. At present, it is unknown when the database will be fully implemented. When and if it is functional, the database is expected to provide the facilities unit with centralized information to use for broader planning purposes.
Due to the limited number and scope of the violations as reported by the facilities unit, the committee does not believe the lack of a central database for safety and health violation information is as crucial as the lack of other management information described in this chapter, except from an overall planning perspective. The information is, however, an important part of a larger, centralized building assessment profile. Although the data are only now being automated and centrally maintained, the information should become part of any future master facilities database developed by the unit. The centralized database needs to have cumulative information about health, safety, and fire violations, where the violations occurred, what corrective measures were taken, and how long it took to come into compliance for overall planning purposes.
LINK system. The public works department purchased an automated facilities management/inventory software program - the LINK system - several years ago. The software, bought for approximately $12,000, is designed to provide centralized database capabilities for storing and managing inventory and equipment information, building maps/drawings, and other data elements necessary for a maintaining a centralized facilities management database. The LINK system is supposed to:
The system is not operational for several reasons. First, there has not been a definitive decision made within DPW to use this particular program as the core facilities management utilization software, despite the original decision to purchase the program. As a result, the system is not being utilized. Second, the facilities unit maintains there is a lack of staff resources to develop and maintain the system. Without the proper staffing, the information necessary to develop and operate the database is not being adequately collected or entered, rendering the system inoperable.
Despite the capabilities of a comprehensive automated facilities management system, there exists the problem of the facilities unit having accurate data to actually use in the system. As noted above, the unit does not have a formal program to routinely collect important facilities information such as equipment inventories, warranty information, square footage, maintenance schedules, and repair information. Without accurate and timely information, the data used in the system would not be reliable. This would need to change for the LINK system to be useful.
By not deciding on a particular facilities management software program and funding its development and operation, the facilities management function remains stuck in an ad hoc, antiquated process for collecting and analyzing information about the buildings under DPW's care and control. As a result, and described later in this chapter, overall asset management, analysis, and planning suffer, and the entire system ends up being reactive rather than proactive.
OPM database. The Office of Policy and Management's assets management section maintains a large amount of information on real property owned by the state in its asset management information system (AMIS). The purpose of the OPM assets management function, created by law in 1992, is threefold:
The committee was informed by OPM when development of AMIS began in the mid 1990s, DPW inventory data intended for use in the system had not been updated for approximately eight years. As mentioned above, it is only within the last several years the DPW inventory data have been put into some form of an automated system.
The AMIS system is a relatively large collection of information about the overall inventory of state-owned property. It offers an extensive profile of buildings using roughly 120 variables. The database information can also be sorted in numerous ways, producing a wide variety of reports for management review and analysis.
OPM attempts to update the database quarterly. It requests facilities managers within specific agencies to submit information about their buildings using an automated format. The committee was told there is follow-up to agencies not submitting information. The database also has the capacity to detect errors or inconsistent information provided by agencies, allowing OPM to contact the agencies requesting the correct information. These two features help ensure the OPM database is current and accurate.
The primary drawback to the AMIS database is how the information is collected. OPM relies on agencies to voluntarily submit their data. Although follow-up attempts are made to collect missing or late information, the upkeep of the database is completely dependent on agencies submitting accurate data on a consistent and timely basis.
Another limitation is the way building locations are kept. The OPM database uses different codes from those used by DPW or the comptroller's office. This makes data analysis somewhat challenging if outside agencies want to use the system. Nevertheless, the committee believes the OPM assets inventory is a very useful tool. Given the lack of an internal and operational facilities management database within DPW, the department may want to work with OPM and utilize its database for analysis purposes until DPW develops its own internal system.
Statewide database proposal. There is a move afoot to begin developing a statewide real property management database. The public works department, OPM, the comptroller's office, and the state's information technology office have developed a budget option to fund a central database for the real property owned or leased by the state. The database would use land and building inventory data maintained by OPM and DPW and asset data within the comptroller's office. Combined, the information would be centralized and become the state's primary real property information system to track asset information from a statewide perspective.
There are two phases for development of the database. The first, planned for immediate completion, focuses on creating common building codes for each of the state's properties. This would eliminate the different coding systems used by DPW, OPM, and the comptroller's office - a problem identified by the state auditors in a recent report on DPW. A database utilizing unique building identifiers is obviously more efficient and would help provide for a common platform to construct and operate the database.
The second phase is the actual data collection component. This includes assimilating current data from OPM, DPW, and the comptroller's office. The data would also be reviewed for accuracy and reliability during this phase. Any missing or outdated information necessary to complete the new system would be collected and entered at this time.
The statewide real property management system is designed to incorporate several facilities management components, including:
The new system is anticipated to increase the state's reporting capabilities for facilities management. This would allow for more effective planning and potentially lower expenditures. The anticipated completion time for the database is three years from the funding approval date.
Funding necessary for constructing the new system is estimated to be $12 million over two fiscal years. Five million dollars are requested in FY 02, with the remaining $7 million being included in the FY 03 request. The cost breakdown of the various components of the database includes $1 million for purchase costs (software, customization, and computer), $1.3 million for implementation costs (contracted project management and hardware), and $9.7 million for data collection/input costs (data collection, verification, and input). The DPW share of the database development costs is $2 million.
It is obvious the anticipated capacity of the real property management database goes beyond facilities management information. The facilities components of the system are intended to capture important information necessary for effective and efficient management of the buildings and properties under DPW's care and control.
The committee believes, however, the Facilities Management Unit should continue working towards building its own facilities management information system for internal use. This is based on several reasons:
1. it is unclear whether, and how much, funding will be provided to develop the statewide database;
2. complete development of the database is expected to take three years after full funding is made available, whereas the facilities unit needs to develop a centralized;
3. management information system immediately; and
4. the facilities unit may need more information for its management purposes than what is captured by the statewide database.
Summary of Findings: Data Collection
Recommendations
1. The Department of Public Works should begin developing a fully automated and integrated facilities management database to use as the foundation of a comprehensive management information system. The facilities unit, in conjunction with upper level management within the department, should decide on the data elements necessary for establishing a complete and current facilities management inventory system. The database should become fully operational by January 1, 2002.
2. Comprehensive inventory information vital to sustain the facilities unit's new inventory management database should be collected and entered at least quarterly. At a minimum, the information should include: 1) comprehensive building assessment data; 2) automated drawings of space configurations within buildings; and 3) health/safety/fire and OSHA reports, maintenance schedules, and repair information.
3. The inventory database information within the Facilities Management Unit should be coordinated with, and communicated to, other relevant divisions within the public works department on a frequent basis.
Reporting, Analysis, and Planning
The scant inventory information currently recorded by the facilities unit is insufficient for any meaningful management reporting or analysis. At present, there is no comprehensive inventory database available for the unit's management to utilize, nor is adequate information currently collected to feed into a comprehensive information system even if one is developed.
A natural outgrowth of management analysis is planning. Proper planning for all facets of the facilities management function is predicated on accurate and timely management information. Regular planning helps ensure efficiency and effectiveness through proper resource allocation. It is very clear to the committee, however, that planning within the Facilities Management Unit is limited at best.
Although the facilities unit's overall management information system is severely lacking, it is important to note the unit has been without an administrator for several years. Management of the facilities unit has been overseen by a deputy commissioner within the department during that period. The program review committee believes the void created by the absence of a permanent manager within the unit contributed to the overall lack of management analysis and reporting. The administrator position was finally filled this past summer.
Although the administrator vacancy existed for several years, the committee believes there has been an ongoing neglect to gather, report, and analyze management information on a macro level in the facilities area. The lack of a formal management information system underscores this observation. The committee was also told on several occasions that previous unit administrators focused on day-to-day operations and did not emphasize formal data collection or management analysis. Although this assertion cannot be confirmed, the current paucity of management information plus the fact that inventory data requested by staff for the early 1990s could not be assembled by DPW, support the claim.
Examples of the management reporting, analysis, and planning deficiencies are present in several key areas of the facilities management operation. Building assessments, preventative maintenance, and cost comparisons between privately and DPW-managed properties are some of the areas examined by committee to determine the degree of management reporting, analysis, and planning.
Building assessments. One of the main recommendation areas contained in the 1986 program review committee study of building maintenance focused on the absence of a system to formally assess building conditions and use the information for planning and budgeting purposes, prioritize repairs, and ensure the work was completed to an acceptable level. Although there have been some improvements in these areas, the thrust of the findings from 1986 holds true today -- there is no single authoritative source of information on the condition of the structural, mechanical, or safety features of properties under DPW's care and control.
There have been two recent attempts by DPW to capture building condition information, yet no formal program exists for ongoing reporting, analysis, or planning. In 1996, the department conducted an extensive survey of all tenant representatives for buildings under the department's care and control. The survey results determined conditions on a building-by-building basis. The results also identified precise problem areas necessary for maintenance or repair.
Despite the overall efforts of the survey and the detailed information it yielded, there has been little follow-up to its original findings - a point the DPW commissioner testified to at the program review committee's recent facilities management public hearing. The commissioner also said the survey was labor intensive and could not be duplicated on a regular basis due to staffing constraints. The committee believes, however, the survey results will soon be rendered useless, if not already, without an implementation plan and quick response.
The Facilities Management Unit is also attempting to formally gather capital improvement information for its buildings. The endeavor began this summer and was conducted by an engineer within the unit. A subsequent capital improvement report includes general information about the type of repairs necessary by building and estimated cost, which total approximately $40 million over a two-year period. The committee believes this report provides an initial start to overall capital improvement planning, although a more detailed project prioritization plan covering a longer implementation cycle is still necessary.
A request to fund the $40 million in capital improvements was not included in DPW's FY 01-02 budget as originally planned by the facilities unit. The department's finance unit noted a separate pool of infrastructure bond funds totaling $17 million available within DPW is for such repairs and it should be used first. A more detailed report based on priorities was also recommended by the department's finance unit before a formal capital request would be made in the department's budget. The committee was told the facilities unit will begin basing its capital improvement requests on priority projects. It is unclear, however, how this process will work or if future building assessments will be conducted.
Preventative maintenance. The level of preventative maintenance planning and reporting is different between property managers and DPW. Personal service agreements for the private companies hired to manage properties under DPW's care and control require a preventative maintenance program be in place for each building the manager has responsibility. The plans must be reported to DPW upon completion and are maintained by the facilities unit. DPW, on the other hand, does not have a formal preventative maintenance plan in place and no formal reports are produced.
Although DPW requires the plans be submitted from the property managers, the committee was told there is not enough staff to fully review the plans and ensure their complete implementation. As a result, the preventative maintenance plans in place for the property managers receive little analysis or oversight from the facilities unit.
DPW does not have preventative maintenance plans in place for any of the properties it manages with in-house resources, including the State Office Building. As a result, there is no structured preventative maintenance program in place. Any preventative maintenance that is done is more of an ad-hoc approach than a systematic program based on prospective planning and analysis.
Cost analysis. The public works commissioner testified before the program review committee that private management companies manage properties "better and cheaper" than DPW. The committee found the Facilities Management Unit, however, does not regularly conduct full cost analyses using detailed information to verify the statement. The department's finance unit does track cost information on an aggregate level. The information, however, has not been regularly used by the facilities unit for overall planning purposes. Committee staff used the finance unit's information to conduct its own cost analysis. The results are outlined in Chapter II of this report.
Although the facilities unit does not make formal cost comparisons between public and private property management, some cost information is maintained. For example, the unit has tracked cost averages for specific property management categories provided by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), a national trade organization. The unit compared budgets for its property managers against the BOMA figures for the Hartford area to determine if costs are proportionate with BOMA averages. If costs are out of line, the unit uses the information to question property managers. Committee staff used the unit's information and presents its analysis in the next chapter.
DPW's cost comparisons with BOMA figures are for FY 01 only. Similar comparisons using BOMA figures for previous years are not available. The unit maintained more general expenditure data for the last several years, yet no formal analyses of the data have been done for planning purposes.
The committee found a good deal of attention is given by the facilities unit to individual line item costs by contractor. The unit, along with the department's finance section, examines monthly billing statements and budgets to determine if operating costs are proportionate with yearly projections and costs incurred in previous months. This analysis is important because it allows the unit to track specific costs and question property managers on items that seem unreasonable.
The committee believes more can be done by the facilities unit regarding cost analysis as it relates to management reporting and planning. Although attempts are being made to analyze costs, more emphasis must be placed on using the analysis from an overall planning perspective. Additional attention by the facilities unit needs to focus on analyzing and comparing costs incurred by private property managers versus DPW. The information should then be used on a more macro level to develop policy direction and programmatic initiatives.
Planning group. There is also a move within DPW to create a "risk and asset management" (RAM) group within the Facilities Management Unit. The group would have responsibility for many of the functions presently performed, including:
1. collecting relevant building and maintenance information;
2. developing a centralized facilities database;
3. producing management reports on various topics; and
4. ensuring budget requests are formally developed and presented to unit management.
An engineer has recently been assigned to the unit, although duties and responsibilities have not been fully developed.
In concept, the RAM group is viewed as a way to mitigate key deficiencies within the Facilities Management Unit. It seems that the responsibilities of the RAM are directed at the very problems identified in this report. The group in its present state, however, is loosely assembled with an undefined operating process and unclear financing and resources.
Business plan. The department is working on an agency-wide business plan. Committee staff discussed the plan with the staff person responsible for its development, but has not been given a copy for review. The plan is said to be near completion.
The department's business plan for facilities management outlines several goals, objectives, and performance measures designed in conjunction with the new facilities unit manager. The plan is said to cross-reference other functions within the department, making it a fully cohesive document for DPW operations.
Summary of Findings: Reports, Analysis, Planning
Recommendations
4. The Facilities Management Unit shall determine the management information and reports it deems appropriate for internal analysis and planning purposes by July 1, 2001. The unit must ensure the information necessary to fulfill its management reporting requirements is captured in a comprehensive facilities management database.
5. The Facilities Management Unit should establish a formal program for obtaining accurate and reliable building assessment information, including square footage measurements, for all properties under its care and control. The assessments should be performed using in-house resources, outsourcing the work, or a combination of the two. The program should be phased in over a five-year period beginning July 1, 2001, and incorporate each property under the department's care and control. Assessment information for properties coming "online" either during or after the initial five-year period should be accounted for immediately.
6. The initial review process for determining capital repairs conducted by the facilities unit this year should be formalized. The facilities unit should also begin developing capital maintenance plans based on one, five, and 10-year increments. As part of the planning process, capital projects shall be prioritized for budgeting and resource allocation purposes.
7. The Facilities Management Unit shall establish a structured preventative maintenance program for the DPW properties managed using in-house resources. A component of the program shall include oversight by the unit to ensure preventative maintenance plans for all facilities under the department's care and control are fully implemented.
8. The facilities unit shall fully implement a system to regularly analyze property management costs on a regular basis for all properties under DPW's care and control.
Oversight
The committee found the department's oversight of property management contractors focuses on financial reviews of monthly invoices and operating budgets. There is very little in the way of formal performance monitoring. The unit does not have a systematic approach - other than reviewing monthly billing statements - to regularly ensure the performance of its contractors or even the property management services provided by in-house resources.
Contractors do not seem to be held fully accountable for their overall performance. Personal service agreements are not performance based, preventative maintenance plans -although submitted to the facilities unit - are not regularly reviewed and there is no formal system in place to ensure the plans are being fully implemented, and there is no systematic program to inspect buildings or solicit tenant feedback.
There is also an uncoordinated reporting structure within the facilities unit for private contractors. Some property managers voluntarily submit management reports to the unit (i.e., monthly work order information), while others do not. The reports, however, are not standardized or formally analyzed for planning purposes by the unit.
Private contractors are also required to conduct frequent tenant meetings with representatives from individual buildings, which DPW does not do for the buildings it directly manages. The department's contact with tenant representatives is on more of an ad-hoc basis. Further, there is no formal assessment made by the facilities unit to ensure property managers are holding regular meetings.
DPW invites agency representatives to participate in the screening process for selecting property management companies. This helps provide the department with some oversight of its property managers in that feedback from the representatives regarding vendor performance is taken into account during the screening process. This is one way the department initiates tenant feedback, yet it is not a mandatory process.
The Department of Public Works is aware problems exist in overall performance monitoring of property management services. The committee was provided a memo from the DPW commissioner to the OPM secretary requesting approval for additional staff. The memo, dated May 2000, notes there are potential risks from the current lack of oversight of property managers. The risks include increased costs, over-billing, and lack of problem resolution. The department believes if its requests for additional staff for the facilities unit are approved, performance monitoring would increase. This would seem to be the case given the key staff positions requested by DPW are for contract administrators, who would assist the one person currently overseeing all the private property managers.
Summary of Findings: Oversight
Recommendations
9. The Facilities Management Unit shall develop a structured program for ensuring the performance of property management services for its entire inventory of buildings. The program shall be designed around measurable goals and objectives developed by DPW for each building on an annual basis. The program shall include random spot checks by the facilities unit of the properties under its care and control at least annually to ensure property management performance. The unit should also require property managers to submit for review by the facilities unit annual reports detailing at a minimum: 1) the major property management accomplishments for each building managed; 2) outstanding projects; and 3) complaint information. Performance measures should be developed by July 1, 2001, and regularly monitored.
10. The Facilities Management Unit should have discretionary authority to require performance surety bonds from property managers at the beginning of each contract cycle. The bonds would be used by the state to ensure contractor performance on a yearly basis. If vendor performance does not meet agreed upon goals and objectives predetermined by the facilities unit and contractor, DPW would have the option of withholding a specified amount of the bond.