Enterprise Asset Management Customer Utility Board and meeting packet...Agenda Enterprise Asset...

Agenda Enterprise Asset Management Customer Utility Board

For more information, contact: Debby Dyer at [email protected] or 503.378.2812

Members: Marc Williams - Chair DOJ

Vacant - Vice-Chair

Ralph Amador DHS/OHA

Christian Grorud Oregon Marine Board

Teddy Leland DLCD

Cameron Smith ODFW

Vacant Secretary of State

Gene Bentley Real Estate

Bob Gebhardt ODOT

Vacant State Police

Jason Barber Agriculture

David Moon Oregon Judicial Dept

DAS Support Staff: Brian DeForest DAS Administrative Officer

Shannon Ryan EAM Administrator

Janet Savarro DBS Administrator

Cathy Rondema DBS Analyst

Debby Dyer Administrative Support

Meeting Date: Dec.13, 2017

Time: 1:00-3:00 p.m. Location: Executive Building | 155 Cottage

St. NE | HRSD

ITEM PRESENTER TIME Welcome

Welcome and review of last meeting minutes:

Action items: 1. Talk about new measures for Real Estate. Move forward to March meeting* 2. Talk about new measures 1, 2 & 5 for PC&M. Move forward to March meeting*

Marc Williams 1:00-1:05

Introductions Project Planning & Construction Mgmt.

Manager

Real Estate status update

Shannon Ryan 1:05-1:10

Performance Reports Surplus

O&M*

Real Estate*

PC&M*

Fleet and Parking

EAM Managers 1:10-1:40

Coming Up January IJWM February JWM Shannon Ryan 1:40-1:50

Rates POPs/Rate Methodology Change Shannon Ryan

Cathy Rondema

1:50-2:20

Updates Executive Order - Shannon Ryan 2:20-2:30

Next meeting: March 14, 2018 1:00-3:00 p.m. Executive Building 155 Cottage St. NE Salem, Oregon 97301

mailto:[email protected]

Minutes Enterprise Asset Management Customer Utility Board


Members:

Marc Williams – Chair Justice

Vacant– Vice-Chair

Ralph Amador DHS/OHA

Gene Bentley Real Estate

David Moon Judicial Vacant Secretary of State Christian Grorud Marine Board

Jason Barber Agriculture Teddy Leland Land Conservation Cameron Smith Fish & Wildlife

Bob Gebhardt Transportation Vacant State Police

DAS Support Staff

Brian DeForest DAS Administrative Officer Shannon Ryan EAM Administrator

Janet Savarro DBS Administrator Cathy Rondema EAM Analyst Debby Dyer Administrative Support

Meeting Date: Sept. 13, 2017 Time: 1:00-3:00 p.m. Location: Executive Building | 155 Cottage St. NE | CR B Attendees: Marc Williams, Jason Barber, Gene Bentley, Bob Gebhardt &

Cameron Smith by teleconference, David Moon DAS Support: Brian DeForest, Shannon Ryan, Janet Savarro, Cathy Rondema, Carolyn Mauroni, Debby Dyer

Guests: Danya Mannion Absent: Ralph Amador, Christian Grorud, Teddy Leland

TOPIC PRESENTER Welcome Marc Williams

• New CUB member – Cameron Smith, ODFW • Review last minutes - approved • Action Items – on agenda

Performance Reports EAM Managers Real Estate It is a very dynamic real estate market out there. In the next 12 to18 months, 2.5 million sq ft in new space coming on the market. A number of leases come due in June. A lot stronger market than 6 months ago. Measures could be a reporting measure instead of percent #4 & #7– target not met – under time and budget Proposing customer feedback be done in a different way instead of survey. Proposing 5 new measures ACTION: Talk about these new measures. Fleet & Parking #2 – Percentage of fleet beyond optimal replacement schedule – target not met - will see this dropping down again. This is the first time we have 75 to 100 vehicles coming in Sept. It’s usually later in the year. #5 – Average customer satisfaction rating of vendors performing maintenance/repair. Target is 8, but would like to raise it to 8.5.

• Work being done on 0 emissions bill. There will be some policy coming along as to what needs to be done.

Planning & Construction Mgt. #4 Percentage of projects completed by the agreed upon date – target not met – did 20% less than anticipated on the property #7 Percentage of times projects are completed within 10% of the initially agreed upon budget – target not met – came in under budget. Maybe put in the notes which are internal projects.

• Would like to propose re-working 5 measures to make them more effective to the program.

• Would like to keep the customer feed-back option but do it in a different way other than sending out a survey.

ACTION: Talk about new measures 1, 2 & 5 at next meeting. Surplus #3 – Average rating for overall satisfaction of Surplus Property

Eric Grindy Brian King Barry Jones Sven Anderson



Program - target not met. Have been on a downward trend. Something we are paying attention to. The comments section is more suggestions than complaints. Operations & Maintenance Doing a deep dive into Tririga to remove too many tasks #2 & #4 – work orders that remain open after 10 days and work orders closed after 30 days - targets not met Custodial – new system Landscaping – number of items inspected has gone up

Jeremy Miller

Executive Orders Update Shannon Ryan • Energy efficiency in buildings • Climate change • Optimization of space

Current Events Shannon Ryan • Fire Impacts – some vehicle requests, but no others • Comprehensive Strategic Plan coming soon. • Inheriting HillCrest and Warrenton building. Will sell both

properties. Jeremy and Dave (Sustainability) will be making the rounds to agencies to talk about changes to HVAC temperatures.

Roundtable All

Next meeting: Dec.13, 2017 1:00-3:00 p.m. Executive Building 155 Cottage St. NE Salem, Oregon 97301


Surplus 2017Q3_Surplus_Quarterly_Performance_Reprt.xlsx

Q3 2017 (Jul-Sep)

Q4 2016 (Oct-Dec) Q1 2017 (Jan-Mar) Q2 2017 (Apr-Jun) Current

% of disposed vehicles reimbursed that went through the disposition process in less than 55 days 84.0% 84.1% 93.9% 87.5%

# of disposed vehicles reimbursed within 55 days 199 169 201 210

Total # of disposed vehicles reimbursed 237 201 214 240

% of accountable surplus property items that could not be located during inventory 8.8% 0.4% 0.3% 0.7%

Total # of inventory which is unaccounted for 252 9 7 20

Total # of accountable surplus items found during inventory 2875 2292 2280 2788

Average rating for overall satisfaction of Surplus Property Program (1-5) 4.76 4.68 4.63 4.65

Sum of the ratings given by survey respondents 238 206 185 214

# of survey responses 50 44 40 46

Percent of surplus sales revenue returned to state agencies 79% 77% 79% 81%

Total reimbursed $796,633.00 $771,640.00 $805,873.15 $984,274.00

Total sales revenue $1,010,013.00 $997,440.00 $1,015,395.54 $1,219,472.00

1

2

4 ≥ 70%

Trend

≥ 80%

≤ 3%

Measure

#Performance Measure Target

3 Previous Quarters

3 ≥ 4.75

SLA Quarterly Performance Report

Name of Program/ Division DAS Surplus

Reporting Period Q3 2017 (Jul-Sep)

Page 1


Measure Comments

General Comments

General Comments

General Comments

Surplus Survey - Improvement Comments

General Comments

4. % of sales returned to agencies.

2. Error rate of inventory reports

Comments for Performance MeasuresInstructions: Enter comments in the box below the heading for "General Comments" for the specific performance measure you wish to enter comments about. Click on the measure on the left to return to the worksheet to which you wish to go back.

1. Timeliness of end-to-end vehicle disposition

process

3. Average rating for overall satisfaction of

Surplus Property Program (1-5)

At times you accept delivery of something totally mangled and destroyed, maybe screen items a little better or get the donors to deal with their own

junk and not put the freight costs and manpower dealing with obviously junk on your department...I know good luck with that one.

Having more information about the products that are up for sale.

If we could collaborate with all state agencies on our smaller assets such as file cabinets, book shelves, lobby chairs, office (rolling) chairs,

tables(conference, end, all sizes) and work on how we can recycle obsolete items. How can we help non-profits obtain our medical items-obsolete for

us, but maybe not for a non-profit. We need help with transportation and storage.

Provide more detailed information on some of the listed items.

We had to search for someone to check us out. More product pictures on line would be great.

Clear separation of federally owned items vs state owned items, as well as clear separation of items available to the public vs only available to agencies.

Communication and customer service. If you have a date scheduled for pick up and delivery, please let us know if that is cancelled.

Not sure. Currently the only concern I have is the new policy concerning minimum purchasing for invoicing. This does not go into effect until 11/1/17

and I am not sure how or if it will effect our overall usage of DAS Surplus.

Staff was wonderful. Did have problems with the website, was unable to view invoice document for some reason (unable to enter date range???).

2- Comments


SURPLUS PROPERTY

Q3 2017 (Jul-Sep)

Complaint

#Date received Complaint Type

Complainant

(Agency and, if

applicable, Dept.)

Affected Customer

(s)Description

1

2

3

Name of Program/ Division

Reporting period

Report on Formal complaints received in the previous quarter

Formal complaints raised by customers using the designated email or alternative electronic means cited on SLA during the last quarter

3- Complaints Report

2017Q3_Operations_Maintenance_SLA_PerformanceReport.xlsx

Q3 2017 (Jul-Sep)

Q4 2016

(Oct-Dec)

Q1 2017

(Jan-Mar)

Q2 2017

(Apr-Jun)Current

% of demand maintenance work orders with rework No Data No Data No Data No Data

# of demand maintenance work orders closed that are flagged as rework Total # of work orders closed

% of non-emergency work orders that remain open after 10 business days 8.1% 8.3% 10.5% 1.8%

# of non-emergency work orders closed after 10 business days 55 64 109 15

Total # of non-emergency work orders closed 680 772 1043 827

% of times a status reports is sent to the agency within 2 hours 97.0% 97.8% 99.1% 98.9%

# of requests responded to within 2 hours 1,163 1,219 1,183 1,125

Total # of service requests created 1,199 1,247 1,194 1,138

% of work orders closed after 30 days 12.2% 4.3% 12.1% 0.2%

# of work orders closed after 30 days 83 33 155 2

Total # of work orders closed 680 772 1283 827

Number of complaints regarding Maintenance keycard shop No Data No Data No Data No Data

Number of complaints received from customers regarding the Maintenance keycard shop

Average # of business days to get a quote for security office projects 9.8 2.0 9.4 13.2

Total # of days to deliver quotes for security office projects 108 4 66 79

Total # of quotes delivered 11 2 7 6

Average # of business days to get a quote for all other projects 4.2 3.0 2.0 1.0

Total # of days to deliver quotes for all other projects 55 30 22 5

Total # of quotes delivered 13 10 11 5

% of custodial inspections with a rating of 3 or better 100.0% 99.6% 100.0% 99.7%

# of custodial inspections with a rating of 3 or better 538 718 677 635

Total # of custodial inspections conducted 538 721 677 637

% of emergency custodial incidents resolved in less than 1 hour No Data No Data No Data No Data

# of emergency incidents resolved in less than 1 hourTotal # of emergency incidents resolved

Average rating of satisfaction with custodial scheduled cleaning services (1-5) No Data No Data No Data No Data

Sum of the ratings given by survey respondents # of building coordinator surveys received

% of custodial actual hours worked vs. planned hours 93.5% 101.1% 95.3% 109.9%

# of custodial hours actually worked 15,370 15,105 20,925 16,708

# of planned custodial hours 16,432 14,944 21,947 15,205

% of landscape inspections with a rating of 3 or better 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

# of landscape inspections with a passing rating of 3 or better 12 12 12 12

Total # of landscape inspections conducted 12 12 12 12

% of landscaping safety items inspected with safety hazards detected 0% 0% 10% 4.8%

# of landscaping safety items inspected with a hazard detected 0 0 2 1

Total # of landscaping safety items inspected 12 12 20 21


Name of Program/ Division DAS Operations and Maintenance


Trend

≤ 5%

≤ 10%

3 ≥ 97%

Measure


3 Previous Quarters

≤ 5

4 ≤ 5%

6A ≤ 10

TBD

1

2

6B

7

10

5

≥ 95%

8 ≥ 95%

9 ≥ 3.9

≥ 95%

11 ≥ 90%

12 ≤ 5%

Page 1


Measure Comments

General Comments

General Comments

General Comments

General Comments

General Comments

General Comments

General Comments

General Comments

General Comments


1. % of work orders for repairs that had already been performed in the previous 90 days

2. % oif non-emergency work orders that remain open after 10 business days

3. % of times a status repors is sent to the agency within 2 hrs.

4. % of work orders that remain open after 30 days

5. Number of complaints received from customers regarding the Maintenance keycard shop.

6a. Average # of business days to get a quote for security office projects

6b. Average # of business days to get a quote for all other projects

7. % of custodial inspections with a rating of 3 or better

8. % of emergency custodial incidents resolved in less than 1 hour

2- Comments


DAS Operations and Maintenance

Complaint


Complainant

(Agency and, if

applicable, Dept.)

Affected Customer

(s)Description

1

2

3

Name of Program/ Division

Reporting period Q3 2017 (Jul-Sep)




Q3 2017 (Jul-Sep)

Q3 2017 (Jul-Sep)

Q4 2016 (Oct-Dec)

Q1 2017 (Jan-Mar)

Q2 2017 (Apr-Jun) Current

% of lease contracts with rates below or at the applicable geographic market rates (Above 5,000 SqFt.)

79% 53% 10% 90%

Total # of leases signed with rates at or under market rates 11 10 2 9Total # of leases signed 14 19 20 10

% of lease contracts with rates below or at the applicable geographic market rates (Below 5,000 SqFt.)

67% 54% 29% 78%

Total # of leases signed with rates at or under market rates 12 14 16 14Total # of leases signed 18 26 55 18

# of critical lease dates missed 0 0 0 5

Total # of critical lease dates 0 0 0 5

% of private lease portfolio contracts on 5-year or longer lease terms 45% 40% 70% 38%

# of contracts in the private lease portfolio with leases of 5 years or more

15 12 31 11

Total # of contracts in the private lease portfolio 33 30 44 29

Average rating of the quality of completed projects No Data No Data No Data No Data

Sum of the ratings to specific questionTotal # of survey responses

6

7

2a

5

2b

Tracked as a monitoring

metric

TBD


metric

0


metric

Trend


Name of Program/ Division DAS Real Estate Services

Reporting Period

Measure # Performance Measure Target

3 Previous Quarters

Measure CommentsGeneral Comments

General Commentsit is apparent that when the leasing team has large workloads they do not have ample time to negotiate transactions under market, as you can see from the previous quarter.

General Comments4 of these critical dates were missed by a DAS Employee and the situation has been remedied, but we are still getting executed documents with missed critical dates from said employee. tOED had trouble making descisions about this small one FTE office, which is the 5th critical date missed (No relocations or upset landlords/customers in regards to missed dates)

General Comments

General Comments

5. # of critical lease dates missed

6. % of lease portfolio contracts on

5-year or longer lease terms

7. Average rating of quality of completed

projects


1.Lease rate vs. average market rate

for the applicable geographic regions

2. % of lease contracts with rates

below or at the applicable

geographic market rates

Complaint

#Date received Complaint Type No Data Affected Customer (s) Description



Name of Program/ Division DAS Real Estate Services


2017Q3_PCM_SLA Performance Report.xlsx

Q3 2017 (Jul-Sep)

Q4 2016

(Oct-Dec)

Q1 2017

(Jan-Mar)

Q2 2017

(Apr-Jun)Current

Average rating of quality of completed plans (1-5) No Data No Data No Data No Data


Average rating of quality of completed projects (1-5) No Data No Data No Data No Data

Sum of the ratings to specific question Total # of survey responses

% of times a decision on a project is communicated back to the agency within 8 calendar days 100% 100% 100% 90%

# of projects with a communicated decision within 8 days of request 9 14 14 9

Total # of projects with a communicated decision 9 14 14 10

% of projects completed by the agreed upon date 83% 100% 75% 50%

# of projects completed by the agreed upon date 5 3 9 2

# of projects completed 6 3 12 4

Average rating of timely communication throughout project (1-5) No Data No Data No Data No Data


% of times projects are completed within 10% of the initially agreed upon timeline 83.3% 100.0% 75.0% 25.0%

# of projects that were completed within 10% of original timeframe 5 3 9 1

Total # of projects completed 6 3 12 4

% of times projects are completed within 10% of the initially agreed upon budget 66.7% 33.3% 33.3% 50.0%

# of projects completed within 10% of original budget 4 1 4 2

Total # of projects completed 6 3 12 4

Trend

3 Previous Quarters


Name of Program/ Division DAS Planning and Construction Management


Measure


≥ 4.5

2 ≥ 4.5

1

5

3

6

7

4

≥ 4.5

≥ 100%

≥ 90%

≥ 90%

≥ 87%

Page 1

Measure Comments

General Comments

General Comments

General CommentsThe PA Committee Coordinator. was out of the office there for a tenant was not notified in the correct time span.

On the Archives Chiller Project, the new to DAS Project Manager was not aware, when projecting end date, that DAS HVAC requires 30 days testing for substantial completion. The GSB Fire Panel project was pushed out due to after hours scheduling in areas where the contractor needed to be accompanied. Both the Yellow Lot and Exec Parking Structure projects took less time then the original estimated completion.

General Comments

General CommentsOn the Archives Chiller Project, the new to DAS Project Manager was not aware, when projecting end date, that DAS HVAC requires 30 days testing for substantial completion. Both the Yellow Lot and Exec Parking Structure projects took less time then the original estimated completion.

General CommentsThe Archives Chiller was over budget. The Yellow Parking Lot and Non-Slip Coat of the Exec Parking Structure both came in below 80% of budgeted amount.


1. Average Rating of question "How well did the completed plans meet your

needs?"

7. % of times projects are

completed within 10% of the initially

agreed upon budget

2. Average rating of question "How well did the completed project meet your

needs?"

3. % of times a decision on a project

is communicated back to the agency within 8 calendar

days

4. % of projects completed by the agreed upon date

5. Timely communication

throughout project

6. % of times projects are

completed within 10% of the initially

agreed upon timeline

Complaint


Affected Customer

(s)Description

1

2

3

4



Name of Program/ Division Planning and Construction Management


2017Q3_Fleet_Quarterly_Performance_Report.xlsx

Q3 2017 (Jul-Sep)

Q4 2016

(Oct-Dec)

Q1 2017 (Jan-

Mar)

Q2 2017 (Apr-

Jun)Current

Average repair cost per mile $0.038 $0.038 $0.039 $0.039

Sum of repair costs 1,390,756 1,399,840 1,424,822 1,418,327

Total # of miles travelled 37,004,436 37,155,452 36,303,925 36,303,203

% of fleet beyond optimal replacement schedule 12.9% 12.9% 13.5% 15.4%

Total # of vehicles beyond replacement schedule 474 475 497 576

Total # of vehicles 3,664 3,690 3,689 3,741

% of rental vehicle requests fulfilled with type of vehicle requested 99.2% 100.0% 99.2% 99.1%

# of requests fulfilled with requested type 254 178 263 217

Total # of survey responses 256 178 265 219

% of vehicles taken to the shop for rework repairs 3.1% 5.4% 0% 4%

# of reported rework incidents 4 6 0 3


Average Customer Satisfaction rating of vendors performing maintenance and repair services (1-10) 8.74 8.52 8.63 8.00

Sum of customer satisfaction ratings 1,801 1,722 1,873 1,240


% of vehicles available for pick up from preventative maintenance services in less than 1 day 84.3% 88.5% 81.6% 80.2%

# of reported PM vehicles ready for pick up in less than 1 day 102 123 111 89


% of vehicles available for pick up from repair services in less than 2 days 88.5% 82.9% 84.1% 78.7%

# of reported RS vehicles ready for pick up in less than 2 days 108 92 111 59


1

6

7

3

≥ 80%

≥ 99%

4 ≤ 4%

5 ≥ 8


Name of Program/ Division DAS Fleet and Parking


Trend

Tracked as a

monitoring

metric: Cost per

mile.

2 ≤ 9%

Measure


3 Previous Quarters

≥ 80%

1- SLA Performance Report


Measure Comments

General CommentsTrend steady and where we like to see it

General CommentsWe have been falling behind on replacements, especially sedans because of older cars that do not meet the mileage for replacement are failing due to age and mechanical failure. This is leading to replacements of newer cars with high miles or older cars with high miles staying out longer so the failed ones can be replaced instead. Overall, this is caused by the budget reduction of 2009 and switching to a miles only replacement standard. Low use vehicles end up staying out too long. FPS has submitted a POP for $2.5 million to target older vehicles in the fleet for replacement and try to reverse this trend. To pay for the POP, it would raise rates about $27 per vehicle per month

General Comments

General Comments

General CommentsDropped a bit. Received some good feedback on a few surveys. In some cases, vendors were contacted on the issue but in others, low marks were given fro some unrealistic expectation from the state employee.

General Comments

General CommentsAgain, we see a low score on this measure because of vehicles that needed more time for repair due to complexity or length of time to receive replacement parts

1. Average repair cost per mile

6. Downtime for preventative maintenance

7. Downtime for repairs/breakdown

2. Fleet replacement status

3. Daily rental vehicle fulfillment

4. Repair comeback rate

5. Rating of maintenance vendors

2- Comments


Complaint


Complainant

(Agency and, if

applicable, Dept.)

Affected Customer (s) Description



Name of Program/ Division FLEET & PARKING

Date report is finalized 12/13/2017



Enterprise Asset Management Customer Utility Board and meeting packet...Agenda Enterprise Asset...

Documents

Transcript of Enterprise Asset Management Customer Utility Board and meeting packet...Agenda Enterprise Asset...