1999 Outstanding Program Awards
Submissions
Public Works

Submission Categories (click below to see the submissions in each category)

Public/Private/Non-Profit Partnerships * Human Resources/Training * Purchasing & Fleet Management * Public Works * General Governmental Services * Technology/Technology Application

Public Works California - Design-Building Program
aaaaThe state has successfully embarked on the design-build program, which has delivered approximately 2.2 million square feet of office space with a total project cost of approximately $490 million in three new facilities, in three cities.
aaaaThe design-build program has benefited the state and the taxpayers by the delivery of these projects well within project schedule and budget. The design-build program has allowed the state flexibility to incorporate innovative concepts in concert with public/private partnership to deliver projects such as: single point of contact, which allows the state the ability to execute one contract for all aspects of design and construction. This provides a savings time of four to six months associated with the contracting process. Funding for design-build projects allows for a more continuous project delivery. The design-build delivery method has created improved project synergy among the project team of the state, A&E, construction and construction management disciplines early in the process and provides greater consistency throughout all phases of the project.
aaaa Among the three projects in the design-build program, there have been no claims. The design-build program has delivered its projects within three to four years of contract execution. The typical process would have taken approximately five to seven years.
aaaa Recent studies comparing design-build construction to design-bid-build conclude a 5.2 percent cost savings for construction and 33 percent reduced schedule in favor of design build.
aaaa For more information, contact Michael Courtney, Acting Deputy Director, Real Estate Services Division, Department of General Services at 916-322-7034 or at mcourtne@dgs.ca.gov.

California - State Building Seismic Program
aaaa In 1990, the California State Legislature enacted the Earthquake Safety and Public Buildings Rehabilitation Bond Act, authorizing $300 million in General Obligation Bonds, derived from Proposition 122, which was passed by voters that year. The act was specific in its approach that the funding was to identify seismic deficient buildings and then to retrofit them to provide life safety.
aaaa The Department of General Services developed a five-step process to screen all buildings to identify the largest in population as well as the most deficient. The significance of this system was to establish a methodology that the state could utilize in its long-range capital outlay planning to assess potential costs to improve state employees' wards of the state, and the public's safety in case of earthquake.
aaaa The short-term cost benefit can only be expressed by the identification and estimated cost to retrofit the most significant buildings. By retrofitting these buildings, it reduces the risk to life from substantial and extensive to minor. This reduction of risk level protects more than an estimated 10,000 employees and wards of the State - reducing the state's potential liability on possible loss of life. In the long-term view, by taking the square footage of all of these buildings in their original risk level category they would be considered effectively non-repairable after a significant earthquake. This would require all of these buildings be completely replaced at a minimum of $200 per square foot versus a retrofit cost of $45 per square foot.
aaaa For more information, contact Joel McRonald at 916-445-2600 or at jmcronald@dgs.ca.gov.

Nebraska - Comprehensive Capital Facilities Plan
aaaa The State of Nebraska Comprehensive Capital Facilities Plan was completed in November 1998 and submitted to the Governor and the Legislature. It is the first of its kind for the state, as it prioritizes capital projects based on an objective rating system. It is a four-year plan based on the biennial budget project requests of state agencies submitted in September 1998. The plan also addresses requests made for the five to eight year period, and incorporates project information, analysis and rating criteria scoring on 70 individual projects of $100,000 and over, plus two groupings of utilitarian projects under $100,000. Besides an overall priority list of the 72 project requests, the Comprehensive Capital Facilities Plan features four other priority lists; one for projects that have a previous legislative appropriation; one for planning requests; one for general tax-funding projects; and one for non-general tax-funded projects.
aaaa As important as the final product is the process by which the plan was developed. It began with legislation that directed the Department of Administration to work with a Governor-appointed planning committee to develop planning guidelines, a process of project prioritization and the final plan itself. Members of the committee and subcommittee represented a wide range of agency personnel. The committee and subcommittees created a mission statement and a corresponding set of governing rules for the capital construction projects, using the agency mission statements and rules as background. The planning committee and the Department of Administrative Services then evaluated existing evaluation methods and eventually formulated a prioritization rating system unique to the state. This rating system is based on a maximum possible score of 1,500 points with 500 points maximum in three broad categories of 1) critical/immediate issues being addressed by the project, 2) financial/economic aspects of the project, and 3) service value of the project.
aaaa For more information, contact Ken Fougeron, State Building Division Administrator at 402-471-3191 or at fougeron@sbd.state.ne.us.

Virginia - Capital Construction Budget Process
aaaa This program addresses the cost to the commonwealth of the capital budget development process. Rather than arbitrarily constrain the identification of requirements, agencies are allowed to request capital construction funds for all of their valid program requirements. State agencies determine and prioritize their program requirements and needs for capital outlay construction or renovations of facilities. The previous "preplanning/budgeting" process required agencies to prepare schematic floor plans and elevations of their intended projects. This required the services of an A/E at an average cost of $50,000+ per project or approximately $8,750,000 per budget cycle.
aaaa Seldom are sufficient funds available to accommodate all agencies' requests. This new Budget Development Process had to (1) determine the program and functional requirements, (2) determine the funding required to economically satisfy the project requirements, and (3) minimize the costs for the capital construction projects.
aaaa The strategy was to develop a process which (1) could be implemented by most agencies' "in-house" staff and (non-architect/engineer) end users, (2) described in a standardized format the spaces and functions to be accommodated by the project, and (3) eliminated the need for outside consultants in the budget development.
aaaa Real dollar savings of approximately $8.6 million per biennium not spent were realized and a 60 percent decrease in manpower required to review budget request eliminated the requirement for bureau overtime. In addition, the process allowed the bureau to integrate its budget review activities with its other routine building official review activities with serious impact on routine activities.
aaaa For more information, contact Donald Williams, Director, Department of General Services at 804-786-3311 or at dwilliams@dgs.state.va.us.

Washington - Asbestos Abatement and Demolition Program
aaaa During the 1970s, the Northern State Hospital was closed and utilities shut off for several years. The result was a rapid deterioration of most campus buildings and the loss of a major employer in the community. The estimated liability for asbestos abatement and building demolition was nearly $10 million.
aaaa The Department of General Administration, Division of Property Development pulled a team of state, local and federal agencies in 1995. GA received specially earmarked asbestos abatement funds from the Governor's Office and then contracted with the State Department of Corrections, Correctional Industries program. CI inmates train on asbestos abatement and demolition; receive minimum gratuity; and gain valuable training and employment experience. Proceeds from the contracts cover the entire costs of CI programs and contribute a portion of the basic costs of incarceration.
aaaa It is estimated that all abatement and demolition will be completed within the next two years for under $2.5 million - a direct savings of $7.5 million.
aaaa For more information, contact Marsha Tadano Long, Director, Department of General Administration at 30-902-7300 or at mtlong@ga.wa.gov.

Washington - Ownership v. Leasing Decision Model
aaaa The decision to build rather than lease facilities is one of the most difficult and potentially costly decisions a state facility manager will face. Since 1995, in order to organize the data and make it comparable, the state of Washington has used an integrated life cycle cost model, incorporating a full range of financial and benefit factors and translates them into four simple outcomes - cash cost; net present value cost; cash cost per square foot in base year dollars; and net present value cost per square foot in base year dollars.
aaaa One additional outcome of the analysis is the ability to generate pro forma financial statements. These let tenants know approximate rates (assuming they are paying off "bonds" through their rates ) years in advance. This decision model will provide you: the ability to find easy answers to multiple variable manipulations; improved and faster decision making; assumption validity and reliability; cost savings; and trust and confidence by decision makers and those affected by the decision.
aaaa There are savings from implemented projects and savings from foregone projects. For implemented projects, the rent savings which will accrue to tenants (25-year planning horizon) are $6.5 million yet at the end of the payment stream the state will also own an asset. For foregone projects, there are no savings when compared with the status quo.
aaaa For more information, contact Dr. Donald Craig, policy analyst, Department of General Administration at 360-902-7344 or at cdonald@ga.wa.gov.

Washington - Plant Operations Support Consortium
aaaaThe goal of the Washington Plant Operations Support (POS) Consortium was to create a central clearinghouse, focal point and resource brokerage specifically for facility managers, to foster intergovernmental teamwork and result in efficiencies and cost savings, in addition to using the strengths of members to solve problems, and be self-sustaining.
aaaa The POS Consortium includes more than 75 Washington state agencies, colleges, school districts and municipalities, plus government entities in Oregon, Alaska, Utah, and the province of British Columbia. The results of the consortium have been positive. Now practices are proactive, preventive maintenance-enables, cost effective, lessons learned are shared; partnering, cooperation and team work is the norm; and pride in unity and image is vastly improved. More than 430 facility professional belong to the consortium, managing more than 100 million square feet of public facility space.
aaaa Through high-tech methods, innovative leveraging of department, state and Consortium assets and operational savvy POS staff resolve nearly 2,000 requests for assistance per year, resulting in more than $2.5 million in avoided costs and outright resource savings since its creation.
aaaa The POS Consortium is member-sustained, with annual or biennial subscription costs assessed based on gross square footages, number of operational sites, or full-time equivalents. To date, the cost to benefit ratio exceeds 1:6.
aaaa For more information, contact Bob MacKenzie, Manager, Plant Operations Support at 360-902-7257 or at bmacken@ga.wa.gov.