Introduction

Department of Public Works: Facilities Management

Study Purpose

On June 19, 2000, the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee authorized a study of the Facility Management operation within the Department of Public Works (DPW). The study's overall purpose was to determine if the department manages facilities under its care and control in compliance with relevant state laws and regulations and in a manner that effectively and efficiently meets the needs of state agencies. It was the intent of the program review committee to identify any operating or procedural deficiencies on the part of the Department of Public Works and propose administrative and legislative remedies where appropriate.

The study scope approved by the committee outlined several areas of analysis relating to facilities management. Specifically, the scope called for determining if:

• the policies and procedures followed by DPW in managing real property for state agencies are efficient and effective in maintaining facilities in a functioning, clean, and safe manner;
• industry standards established by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) or similar groups are being met by the department;
• employees and visitors are satisfied with building operations; and
• facilities management costs paid by the department are higher or lower than those in the private sector.

Background

The Facilities Management unit within the Department of Public Works had a staff of 71 and an annual general fund operating budget of $22.2 million in 2000. The unit either directly managed or oversaw the management of 7.3 million gross square feet of space at the end of FY 00. Several large state hospital campus facilities, including Fairfield Hills, Norwich, and Seaside Heights, which are considered surplus property and in the process of ownership transfer by the state, were managed by DPW at the time of the study. All surplus property sites are managed by private companies under contract with DPW.

Previous program review study. The program review committee conducted a study of building operations and maintenance in 1986. The study made the following major findings:

• buildings were poorly maintained and in need of proper cleaning and painting;
• no preventative maintenance plan was developed or in place by the state;
• electrical systems were overloaded in several instances; and
• more than half of the occupants thought building conditions hindered their work or created an unpleasant work environment and rated the upkeep of floors, walls and ceilings as "fair" to "poor";
• fire code violations existed in several buildings.

As a result of the above findings, the following is a summary of the main recommendations made by the committee:

• contract out private management whenever feasible;
• establish a database for completed inspections for each building;
• establish a cost accounting system for allocation of staff, equipment, and expenses for each building;
• develop a five-year cyclical plan for evaluating and reporting on the structural integrity, mechanical systems, safety features, code compliance and general appearance of each building;
• develop a maintenance plan for each building with priority ranking and cost and completion time estimates;
• develop a plan to implement the preventative maintenance program;
• develop a custodial supervision program;
• require agencies to appoint a liaison with the central facilities management unit and annually meet to discuss needs/problems;
• prepare a maintenance manual for each building;
• evaluate the structural integrity, mechanical systems, safety features, code compliance and appearance of buildings over 2,500 square feet every five years, with a report generated by the evaluation team; and
• require state agencies to periodically report on the condition of their buildings.

Methodology

The information contained in this report was obtained through a variety of sources. Initial efforts focused on gaining an understanding of DPW responsibilities in the area of facilities management, how those duties are performed, and the amount and allocation of resources. Committee staff reviewed state statutes and regulations, state budget documents, and DPW written descriptions and procedures. Information on DPW's Facilities Management operations was obtained mainly through interviews with department staff. Interviews with several property management companies, state agencies, and an independent consultant performing work for DPW in the area of asbestos abatement were conducted. Committee staff also attended meetings between tenant representatives and a property management company under contract with DPW. Financial records from DPW for its facilities management program were analyzed, and a survey of tenant representatives in buildings under DPW's care and control was distributed and analyzed. Information from the program review committee's public hearing on this topic was also used.

Report Organization

The report is divided into six chapters, including: 1) organization and resources; 2) duties and responsibilities; 3) processes and procedures; 4) inventory management; 5) asset analysis; and 6) building operations survey. Appendix A provides DPW's current response to how well the recommendations from the committee's 1986 study have been implemented. Appendix B provides an example of various scoring criteria used by DPW in its oral interviews of private management contractors. Appendix C gives a full accounting of the results of the committee's survey of tenant representatives in properties under DPW's care and control. Appendix D is the formal agency response to the report.

Note

For purposes of this study, the term "maintenance" is defined as: actions taken to repair or prevent the deterioration of a building's structural and mechanical systems; cosmetic improvements of minor alterations to buildings; and general housekeeping of buildings.

Return to Year 2000 Studies

Return to Table of Contents