Report 98/30

Building Repairs and Maintenance Study in the Higher Education Sector:

National Report

June 1998

This electronic version of the report contains the Foreword, Executive Summary and Introduction only. A full version is available in both Word7 and RTF formats. The complete printed document is available from HEFCE.

Contents

Foreword
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. Building Repairs and Maintenance in the HE Sector
3. A Way Forward
3.1 Chairs and Honorary Officers - Governing Committees
3.2 Vice-Chancellors, Principals and Directors
3.3 Heads of Academic and Administrative Departments
3.4 Heads of Estates
3.5 Heads of Finance
Appendices

Foreword

Building maintenance is delivered within a statutory framework that is becoming stricter and more demanding, with the risk of sanctions being applied in cases of non-compliance. It has significant cost implications for every institution, if ignored. Building maintenance should therefore be a management concern for all institutions.

To maintain their estate, institutions should create a management framework which:

• recognises the interests of different stakeholders through service delivery arrangements
• ensures compliance with statutory regulations
• enables institutions to manage and fund agreed maintenance priorities included in their strategic and operational plans
• delivers value for money for the institution.

The outputs of this study provide a set of tools and ideas for all institutions to deliver value for money, within a framework that enables management options to be considered. The steering group recognises that a range of options exists and it is the responsibility of the institution to identify and implement the most appropriate management arrangements to match its requirements.

The steering group will continue to produce reports for HE institutions on the basis of 'by the sector, for the sector', providing information to address management concerns. In turn, the Funding Councils will seek to assess the benefits derived by institutions from the outputs of this initiative.

Professor David Wallace
Chair - UK Value for Money Steering Group
Vice-Chancellor, Loughborough University

June 1998

Executive Summary

Introduction

Following wide consultation involving all HE institutions in the UK during 1993, building maintenance was ranked by the sector as one of a range of matters of management concern. This study is the third in a series undertaken as part of the Funding Councils' value for money initiative.

Building maintenance is an essential service in the facilities managed by the institution. It is important that the management arrangements for such services are structured to meet the agreed core business objectives and requirements identified within the institution's strategic and operational plans. In seeking efficiency gains, management arrangements need to identify and report both benefits and costs.

The findings of the 'Building Repairs and Maintenance Study in the Higher Education Sector' readily acknowledge the work already undertaken by institutions in managing planned and reactive maintenance. However, further strategic and operational opportunities, as well as cost benefits, exist for institutions to enhance their existing arrangements for delivering this key support service.

The principal messages of the study are as follows.

Developing a maintenance strategy provides an effective, credible and practical approach for managing building maintenance.

• Estates strategies should be reviewed to identify building maintenance objectives.
  

One institution's objective was to tailor the maintenance required for areas scheduled for change in academic use. A long-term maintenance plan and programme has been developed, linked to the strategic planning processes of the institution. Savings of £17,000 have been achieved already from undertaking performance-based contract reviews; overall savings of 5 per cent are predicted in mechanical and electrical maintenance costs; and a further saving of 1 per cent in heating costs is anticipated.

Condition surveys should inform planning processes and prioritise funding for identified maintenance needs.

• Effective management of building maintenance should be based on knowing the condition of the institution's estate, ie, the fabric of all campus buildings and the condition of the mechanical and electrical services installed.
  

One institution undertook a recent survey of its campus, including the halls of residence, to update its long-term maintenance programme. As a result of the survey, the estates director is able to advise the institution on the financial provisions it should be making over the next 10 years. The survey also helps the institution to make decisions regarding maintenance priorities, and to identify the consequences of under-funding building maintenance.

At an operational level, the survey is the main tool for preparing the current year's planned maintenance programme, and for updating its long-term maintenance programme up to 10 years ahead. In preparing annual maintenance budgets, it also provides an accurate basis for compiling zero-based bids to place before the estates committee.

The survey was designed and structured to meet the institution's needs. A survey report was produced that is readily accessible for management requirements, and it is constantly monitored and updated. The report has also proved useful in co-ordinating maintenance and capital refurbishment works.

Planning processes should be co-ordinated to maximise cost savings from capital building and maintenance projects.

• Future space and maintenance savings should be clearly identified as part of preparing the specifications for all design and build and refurbishment projects.
  

At one institution, following the Hunter condition survey results, increased attention has been given to rationalising its estate. Buildings that have no long-term contribution are identified, while others are upgraded to ensure better utilisation of the institution's resources. The institution intends to co-ordinate its objectives for space management, long-term maintenance and building refurbishment in updating departmental refurbishment and relocation plans.

The principal achievements of a recently completed project were:

• a substantial reduction in the institution's maintained academic space - 4000 m2 was made available for disposal, with recurrent savings in future maintenance costs
• the relocation of an academic department from a sub-standard, maintained space
• the sympathetic refurbishment of a listed, city-centre and landmark building for future academic use.

The process is ongoing; it is managed by a space management task group established to maximise space utilisation and functional suitability for all academic areas within the institution. Extensive customer consultation is also undertaken.

Deferring building maintenance can cost time and money.

• Estate management information systems are essential to enable management action to be directed, expenditure to be prioritised, and performance to be monitored.
  

At one institution, the department of estates is implementing a comprehensive computer aided design and facilities management (CADFM) system to centralise its drawing archive, to speed up the production of design work, and to improve the management information on its estate.

The project began 18 months ago. An experienced CAD manager was recruited and all the institution's plans for its major academic and administrative buildings, covering approximately 120,000 square metres, are now on the new system. Staff training is currently being undertaken. Immediate benefits have been achieved, especially in making amendments and modifications to designs, and in producing information for users and contractors.

Running parallel with the introduction of the CAD system is the development of the facilities management (FM) database. Users can switch from viewing an AutoCAD plan to the FM database for textual information about the rooms on the plan. The FM system will eventually provide management with the right information for all forms of effective space planning, and include information on premises costs, leases, health and safety, condition survey results and so on.

Customer service standards should be agreed to define building maintenance priorities.

• Development of building repairs and maintenance service standards should be linked to considerations of risk, priority, quality and available resources in respect of core business activities.
  

At one institution, the estates department has produced a statement of the level of service which it aims to achieve for all aspects of its work. The response times and method of control for repairs and maintenance are specified so that standards can be agreed at the highest level in the institution. Each department has a nominated estates department contact on their staff who is informed of all building work in the department. Special briefings are held from time to time for the estates department contacts.

Procurement arrangements for building maintenance should meet agreed levels of service delivery.

• Both internal and external procurement arrangements for building maintenance should be periodically reviewed to achieve value for money.
  

At one institution, the planned maintenance of boiler and mechanical handling plant was undertaken by three firms of contractors. In 1994-95, the cost of the contracts combined was £201,000 per year. Reactive repairs were also undertaken by the same contractors at an additional cost of £57,000 per year.

In 1995-96, the above planned and reactive maintenance work was re-tendered as one contract. The lowest tender received was £247,000 per annum. It was at this stage, following an evaluation of contract costs against anticipated in-house costs, that the institution decided that a substantial saving could be made by bringing the work in-house. The costs for 1996-97 indicate an annual saving of £72,000 against those for 1994-95; and a saving of £118,000 per annum against the re-tendered cost for 1995-96.

Further advantages gained by the institution as a result of staff training and improved operating procedures are:

• improved customer support and service
• better control over managing the work
• a multiple-skilled workforce, well trained in equipment use
• cost savings in using certain contractors - 30 per cent less in the case of scaffold contractors.

Also, equipment purchased to enable maintenance work to be undertaken in-house, such as clearing blocked drains, has seen a pay-back within six months, adding further cost savings.

Quality of service in delivering building maintenance should be measurable.

• Quality reviews and performance benchmarking provide a means of assessing whether service standards are being achieved.
  

One institution uses its clerk of works to carry out sample quality checks on the work carried out by the direct labour staff. Written feedback is also provided by users when a job is completed.

At another institution, market testing has been abandoned and replaced by benchmarking. The institution had previously market tested cleaning and grounds maintenance. However, it was considered a costly and time-consuming exercise. The institution is now developing benchmarks for its estates services. The institution is also an active participant in a sector-based maintenance benchmarking project, from which it hopes to gain further benefits.

Conclusion

The estate is an important asset for all institutions. It supports the delivery of teaching and research, and it also provides a stimulating and supportive environment for students and staff. An appropriate and well-maintained estate, therefore, is critical to the delivery of the institution's core business objectives in a cost-effective way.

Introduction

Background

The Building Repairs and Maintenance Study in the HE Sector is the third in a series of studies under the auspices of the UK Value for Money (VfM) Steering Group. The objective is to produce a range of studies that have practical outcomes for handling management issues of concern to higher education institutions (HEIs).

By involving feasibility and pilot sites, a sector-wide building maintenance questionnaire, and discussions with colleagues in the sector, the study embodies an approach that may be encapsulated in the phrase 'by the sector, for the sector'.

This 'National Report' is one of two outputs from the study; the second is a 'Management Review Guide'.

Scope and Objectives of the Study

The study is concerned with the management arrangements for planned and reactive maintenance, in respect of academic and other buildings and the installed services within them.

The total repairs and maintenance spend in the UK higher education sector can vary year on year. But at the present time, it is about 1 per cent (£200 million) of the insurance value of the UK HE sector's combined estate (£21 billion). Building maintenance is important, therefore, in the overall facility arrangements to be managed by the institution.

The objectives of the study are to:

• provide examples of good practice in building maintenance, drawn from the HE sector and elsewhere (see National Report)
• propose a set of performance benchmarks for building maintenance in HE institutions that are allied to management actions (see Management Review Guide).

Involvement of the Sector

This study has been carried out with the support and assistance of the HE sector.

Three HEIs acted as feasibility sites to determine the scope and opportunities for the study.

A further 12 pilot sites agreed to:

• provide some insight into the building maintenance arrangements at their institution
• share examples of their experience and good practices in building maintenance that could be reflected in the National Report
• identify some issues which are likely to be of strategic and management importance to HEIs over the next three years, and which should be reflected in the Management Review Guide
• help to develop performance benchmarks for HEIs on managing their building maintenance arrangements, covering standards, investment, planning and staff.

Other HEIs were also involved in the study. Some institutions were invited to provide examples of their building maintenance arrangements, and others to consider the matters raised in the report and the guide.

A building maintenance questionnaire was developed in consultation with representative organisations and sent to all HEIs to gain a wider perspective of their building maintenance arrangements. Sixty per cent of institutions responded.

Sector organisations also participated by commenting on the issues raised. They included the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP), Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP), Association of University Directors of Estates in the UK (AUDE), and the Association of University Engineers (AUE).

The project team are grateful to all those who have contributed, and particularly to the representatives from HEIs who helped to produce the National Report and the Management Review Guide (see Appendices).

Reports from the Study

The two publications arising from the study can help institutions to review their building maintenance arrangements.

This 'National Report' provides an overview of the management issues for the HE sector, and for the individuals and organisations that have a key role in tackling those issues. It proposes a way forward, and suggests areas which require further consideration. The report also includes cameos of good practice in the HE sector and elsewhere to highlight the opportunities for institutions to achieve value for money.

The 'Management Review Guide' provides the tools HEIs need to review their management arrangements for planned and reactive maintenance. It aims to enable institutions to identify and implement their own management solutions.