13 th February 2009

 A company called Property Tectonics were commissioned to carry out a condition survey of the campus according to RICS criteria.  Importantly, Phase V Residences were excluded from the survey, as were all UPP buildings. This fact has a significant bearing on the following figures:

Non ResidentialResidential

Non ResidentialResidential Definitions of condition ratings (RICS): A As new condition BSound, operationally safe and exhibiting only minor deterioration COperational, but major repair or replacement needed in the short to medium term (generally 3 years) DInoperable, or at serious risk of major failure or breakdown Definitions of condition ratings (RICS): A As new condition BSound, operationally safe and exhibiting only minor deterioration COperational, but major repair or replacement needed in the short to medium term (generally 3 years) DInoperable, or at serious risk of major failure or breakdown

Non ResidentialResidential

Non ResidentialResidential

Non ResidentialResidential Definitions of functional suitability ratings (HEFCE): 1Excellent; the rooms/buildings fully support current functions. (highly suitable) 2Good; the rooms/buildings provide a good environment for the current function in all or most respects. (suitable) 3Fair; the rooms/buildings provide a reasonable environment for current functions in many respects, but has a number of shortfalls. (generally unsuitable) 4Poor; the rooms/buildings fail to support current functions and/or are unsuitable for current use. (very unsuitable) Definitions of functional suitability ratings (HEFCE): 1Excellent; the rooms/buildings fully support current functions. (highly suitable) 2Good; the rooms/buildings provide a good environment for the current function in all or most respects. (suitable) 3Fair; the rooms/buildings provide a reasonable environment for current functions in many respects, but has a number of shortfalls. (generally unsuitable) 4Poor; the rooms/buildings fail to support current functions and/or are unsuitable for current use. (very unsuitable)

Non ResidentialResidential

Non ResidentialResidential

13 th February 2009

 GTFM were commissioned by Lancaster University and Universities X, Y and Z to provide a departmental operational review at each University.  Three stages of work were identified within the brief. GTFM have been commissioned to carry out the first stage: a benchmarking exercise.  The benchmarking exercise involved the four Universities, commercial organisations, industry standards and HEFCE figures.  Data gathered through on-site investigations and information gathering exercises.  Areas included within the review include: Estates maintenance disciplines; quality of service measures; unit costs; health and safety; energy; waste, sickness absenteeism; estates strategy, procurement strategy and review of SLA’s.

Like for like comparison  To make comparisons against Universities equal, a base level of 150,000m² was used.  The base level was achieved by factoring up or down from the current occupied area of the Universities campuses.

The Comparisons Made  FM Costs – Cost per annum  Resource Levels  Workload per operative comparator  Supervisor to Operative Ratio  Absence rate – Work related and Un Work related  Energy Usage  Authorisation Limits  Stores

FM Costs  Universities’ FM costs include both in house costs and contractors costs.  Capital costs and major replacement costs have not been included within the review.  Universities’ FM Costs have been benchmarked against the annual FM cost and calculated labour rates.  To ensure that the benchmark was comparable; the GTFM benchmark has not compared rates where costs have not been provided by all of the Universities.

Benchmark Costs – The Source  Sources of FM benchmark costs included: – Oais Academy (London) – Paisley University – PFI Contracts (NHS and Education) – BBC – Recent major public sector outsourced FM contracts – RICS – NAO – HEFCE – Borough of Oadby & Wigston Council

FM Costs   Lancaster University is in the upper benchmark range  The upper range is generated from properties receiving high standards of service  A performance review was not carried out during the review so the level of service cannot be validated

Total Resource Levels  Resource per 150,000m² - All staff grades  Lancaster have the second lowest resource levels of the Universities within the Review. It should be noted that Lancaster did exclude post and portering staff  Resource for Hard FM Services are comparable with all of the Universities within the Review  Resource for Soft FM is lower than the all other Universities within the Review  “Other” includes; Support Services; Admin; Transport; AV Services and Soft FM (ancillary services)

Management Resource Levels per 150,000m²  Lancaster has one of the lowest Manager resource levels of all the Universities within the review  “Other” includes; Support Services; Admin; Transport; AV Services and Soft FM (ancillary services)

Workload Comparator - Cleaning  Lancaster has the highest area cleaned per hour per operative than all other Universities within the review

Utilities Usage

Conclusion and next steps  Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) need to be reviewed, updated and communicated across the University.  The planned maintenance regime needs to be reviewed.  The use of multi-skilled operatives should be considered.  The Estates Strategy should be reviewed in line with the new University Strategy, and it should include a review of the investment plan.  Consultation with staff is already underway.

13 th February 2009

 Each year, all Universities are asked to make a data return to HEFCE which covers many aspects of estate management for the previous academic year.  The new Business Support section in Estate Management has been responsible for collating the data for this year’s return (2007/8).  The quality of our data is improving, and involving the Business Support Team has provided a focus for improving the data we hold in Estate Management.

 The quality of data in the latest return is better than ever, though improvement areas have been identified for next year.  Energy costs have leapt up and will continue to do so in next year’s return, despite reductions in consumption.  Total property costs are below the sector average. A major factor is our below-average expenditure on maintenance. To continue improving the condition of our buildings, further investment in maintenance will be required.

13 th February 2009