Chapter VI
Survey Results
As part of its study, the committee conducted a survey of the 30 state agencies using DPW for leasing and space acquisition. The purpose of the survey was to obtain the agencies perspective, opinion, and experience with the state's space acquisition process. The survey attempted to discover how responsibility for individual leases was assigned within various agencies. It also sought to assess the effectiveness of DPW, the usefulness of the statewide facility plan (FACCAP) for space planning, and agency experience with the emergency certification process. Completed surveys were received from 29 agencies representing a 97 percent response rate. A copy of the questionnaire with a tabulation of the responses are found in Appendix G.
Ninety percent of the agencies that responded to the question indicated there was a single person responsible for leases in their agency. Most were fiscal or administrative officers with a small number of engineers. Sixty-three percent of those responding stated that they reported directly to an agency head or deputy.
Agencies generally rated DPW favorably in terms of how well the department assisted them in acquiring space. Overall, 72 percent rated their working relationship with the department as "good" or "excellent". These ratings dropped to 53 percent when asked about the clarity of the department's policies.
Most of the respondents rated DPW favorably in terms of its ability to find suitable facility options, evaluating advantages and disadvantages of potential sites, and resolving problems with the lessor after the lease is signed. However, ratings were more diverse in the areas of providing technical support to determine space needs, negotiating favorable lease terms, and drafting lease proposals. In each of these three categories, the department received mostly favorable responses although there were slightly more responses rating DPW at the extreme ends of the scale. The department was rated most unfavorably in the timeliness of its process. Thirty-three percent rated DPW "poor" in this area.
In addition to ratings, many of the agencies submitted written comments. The most frequent issue mentioned was the length of the process. Almost all of the agencies with comments stated the process is too long. Among the reasons they attributed to the length were: duplication in process; no established turn around times; delays due to incomplete lease packages; lost or misplaced documents; too many corrections needed; and too many requests for clarification.
Statements were also made concerning oversight of the process including: too many players involved; no single point of reporting, accountability, or supervision; and no tracking mechanism in place. In addition, observations were made regarding staff performance. A few agencies noted that the DPW staff managed smaller routine leases fairly well but seemed to lack of the resources and experience to handle larger or complex projects. Similarly, a few agencies noted DPW handled lease compliance issues well if it involved small leases but not as well for larger problems or issues.
Space-planning. The committee also asked the agencies to describe the methods used to determine space needs for the statewide facility plan (FACCAP). Most of the agencies stated they base their needs on the space standards analysis required by the state as described in Chapter II of this report. Several mentioned reviewing client populations, demographics, and changes in the availability of public transportation. Others noted input from their regional offices and branches. A few agencies with special requirements such as a library indicated they also use available industry standards. Although most of the agencies responding felt FACCAP is a good indicator of agencies' future space needs, several had comments about the plan and its development process. Among the statements made:
· "good as a gross planning tool but excessively cumbersome";
· "no mechanism for updating - implementation data is a year old";
· "more of a budget document rather than a planning document"; and
· "problematic if a new program is created or court-order mandates do not allow for time to plan for expansion" .
Emergency certifications. Another area the committee wished to explore was the use of emergency certifications. Fifty-two percent of the agencies responding indicated they had applied to OPM for emergency certification within the last five years. As noted earlier, none were denied. The most common suggested change regarding the process was that it's turnaround time should be shorter.