Fiscal Review July 2013 Overview of two contracts between State of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Fiscal Review July 2013

Overview of two contracts between State of Tennessee, Department General Services and Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. 1. SBC Number 460/000-01-2011 2. CPO Agency Tracking Number 32101-00124

1

Real Estate in 2011 “Our job is to deliver the best possible service at the lowest possible cost.”

• Governor Bill Haslam

2

Tennessee Real Estate Portfolio 93.5 MSF

Real Estate Portfolio

3 General Government Real Estate Portfolio 35.5 MSF

Remaining General Gov’t – Owned 24.4 msf (69%) FRF – Owned 6.6 msf (19%) Non-FRF – Leased 1.5 msf (4%)

FRF – Leased 3 msf (8%) Today’s focus is the FRF portfolio (Facilities Revolving Fund – general

• ffice buildings)

General Gov't Real Estate 35.5 msf (38%) Tennessee Board of Regents 33 msf (35%) University

• f

Tennessee 25 msf (27%)

Real Estate in 2011

4

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 Pre-1960 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000 and Beyond Square Footage

Aged Portfolio

• Estimated Asset Replacement

Value of General Government Buildings is $6.2 billion

• Average Age of Owned Portfolio

is 35 years

• However, the oldest 43% of the

portfolio has an average age of 50 years

• Architecture and technology have

surpassed current portfolio

Chattanooga State Office Building Built 1955 Lowell Thomas State Office Building Built 1977 Donnelly J. Hill Built 1968

5

Life Safety Issues

Windows Falling Out of the James K. Polk Building

April 17, 2011 – A glass window fell out of the building – the 11th window to fall out. Wind speed was only 25mph and not the cause of this event or any other windows that fell. One of many windows where the glass and frame were separated by ½ inch or more.

6

Life Safety Issues

May 31, 2011 - In the Andrew Jackson garage,

a heavy chunk of concrete with rebar fell off the ceiling

and nearly hit (and could have seriously injured) a State employee.

7

Space Inefficiencies

Cluttered and under- utilized spaces were common throughout the FRF 9.6 million sf portfolio.

8

FRF Administration Inefficiencies

Contract Administration

• 479 different facility management contracts
• 107 different Janitorial Contracts
• 72 different Alarm System Contracts
• 35 different Generator Maintenance Contracts

Lease Administration

• 381 Leases were administered by only two employees
• Reactionary vs. Proactive management due to volume –

leading to more than 100 holdovers and subpar quality spaces

• Agencies moved out of State space for nicer leased space

leaving State space under-utilized

• Random pockets of vacant space within leased buildings

9

Assessment and Solution

10

Researching Best Practice

The Department of General Services met with and spoke to numerous Industry Leaders including: Public Sector: States of Texas, Virginia and Indiana Private Sector: AT&T, Nissan, Mars, Motorola and Proctor & Gamble

11

Industry Assessment

Why is the private sector outsourcing real estate services?

“Nissan focuses on the core business

• f making cars and relies on experts

for real estate services.”

How can the State of Tennessee best manage its real estate assets?

Recommendation – The State should procure an industry expert to provide comprehensive, integrated real estate management services.

12

Research

• Six (6) states have active or recent solicitations for Master Planning and

Additional Services (including brokerage services)

• State of New York has RFP for Facility Assessments, Master Planning, and

Additional Services (including brokerage services)

• Eight (8) states already use service providers for brokerage services
• Twelve (12) states do SOME outsourcing but not comprehensively

What Other States Are Doing

13

Tennessee Leads the Nation Forward

Tennessee is the first state to outsource comprehensive real estate services. Eight (8) states looking to follow Tennessee's lead include: Oklahoma, Georgia, North Dakota, California, Hawaii, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

Procurement of the Initial Contract

RFP Scope was for Comprehensive Real Estate Services including:

• Facilities Assessments
• Master Planning
• Leasing
• Facility Management
• Project Management

Comprehensive outsourcing of real estate services was NEW TERRITORY for a governmental entity like the State of Tennessee. RFP development began in May 2011 as a joint effort between multiple departments and agencies. The RFP was released for bid on October 19, 2011.

14

RFP Respondents

Six (6) Proposals Received by November 9, 2011:

• Cassidy Turley
• CB Richard Ellis
• Colliers International
• Jones Lang LaSalle
• Tetra Tech
• Johnson Controls

Three (3) Respondents Qualified:

• CB Richard Ellis
• Tetra Tech
• Jones Lang LaSalle

15

Respondents had to reach a technical score threshold to qualify.

Initial Contract

Contract Awarded to Jones Lang LaSalle on December 6, 2011 Services began on January 23, 2012 Funding Available at Beginning of the Contract:

• Only $1 Million in appropriated funding initially available
• Amendments to the original contract were executed as

additional funding became appropriated and available.

16

Initial Work Performed

• Facilities Condition Assessments on the

largest 33 of 159 buildings representing 5.5 million square feet (57% of FRF).

• Master Planning involved a space

utilization housing plan, space

• wnership plan, and a project

prioritization plan on the same 5.5 million square feet.

• Leasing Services

17

FRF – Owned and Leased 9.6 msf Remaining General Gov’t - Owned and Leased 25.9 msf GENERAL GOVERNMENT REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO 35.5 msf

Initial Work Performed March 2012 through June 2012 Limited by the initial $1 million in funding, only certain work in the contract was authorized including:

Initial Findings – Facilities Management

• Overstaffed but underperforming
• High operating costs
• Poor maintenance practices (Run to Fail)
• Dangerous working conditions
• Lack of training programs
• Little documentation on systems and buildings
• Little industry best practice
• No plan to improve

18

Initial Findings – Operational Benchmarking

FY 11 Spend Analysis for TN $995,594 $5,317,631 $191,543 $260,890 $6,065,081 $5,991,757

• 5,000,000

10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 Cleaning GB R&M Grounds Admin Utilities Security Total Spend Industry Standard Benchmark Potential Savings

Savings Potential : $ 18.8 M per year $94 M over 5 years

• n Pass through

Expenses

“Pass through” expenses are all costs, expenses, charges and allocations of contractor in connection with the Services in accordance with the Approved Budget. There is no mark-up on pass-through expenses. All above are pass through except Utilities.

19

Initial Findings – Risk Management

Exposed electrical panel increases the risk of electrocution Fire extinguisher was last serviced in 2009, violating fire codes and indicating a high risk of failure

20

Initial Findings – Risk Management

Storage room is cluttered and has an oil spill near the drain, increasing risk of environmental pollution and plumbing and/or electrical system failure Main electrical switch gear is next to a urinal, creating a life/safety issue and increased risk of electrocution and/or fire

21

Andrew Jackson: Improper duct penetration, causing contaminated air

22

Initial Findings – Risk Management

James K. Polk: Exposed high voltage electrical panel creates a life/safety issue

23

Initial Findings – Risk Management

James K. Polk: Machine does not have a protective guard or insulation, violating OSHA guidelines and creating a dangerous environment

24

Initial Findings – Risk Management

Exposed high voltage electrical wiring is in violation of code and is major life/safety issue

25

Initial Findings – Risk Management

Tennessee Regulatory Authority: Air damper does not open and close properly and has been propped open with a 2X4

26

Initial Findings – Risk Management

TPS Complex: Air dampers are being held open with zip ties due to lack of preventative maintenance

27

Initial Findings – Risk Management

Tennessee Regulatory Authority: Improper storage of chemicals and inadequate spill containment creates risk of poison and fire

28

Initial Findings – Risk Management

Tennessee Tower: Pipes are not insulated, allowing for corrosion over time, and resulting in wasted energy

29

Initial Findings – Risk Management

Tennessee Tower: Loose belts on fans create a serious life/safety issue

30

Initial Findings – Risk Management

TPS Complex: Fuel leak represents a fire hazard and environmental concern

31

Initial Findings – Risk Management

TPS Complex: Fuel filter is 10 years past its expected life expectancy creating a fire and life/safety hazard

32

Initial Findings – Risk Management

TPS Complex: Corrosion of battery cable terminal increases the risk that the emergency generator may fail

33

Initial Findings – Risk Management

TPS Complex: Lack of fall protection represents a serious safety hazard

34

Initial Findings – Risk Management

Henley Street Office Building: Access to fire alarm panels are blocked due to clutter, creating a fire and life/safety hazard

35

Initial Findings – Risk Management

Citizens Plaza: Air filters have not been changed producing poor indoor air quality

36

Initial Findings – Risk Management

Citizens Plaza: Improper storage represents a fire hazard

37

Initial Findings – Risk Management

Andrew Jackson: Lack of belt guards creates dangerous conditions and violates OSHA guidelines

38

Initial Findings – Risk Management

Initial Findings – Deferred Maintenance

Categories Requiring Immediate / Short-Term Investment Are:

Category Required Investment Average Per Square Foot Comments Life-Safety $ 7.3 M $ 1.58 Fire protection, safety violations Roof Repair and Replacement $ 7.2 M $ 1.56 Roof, parapet, flashing Building Systems $118.4 M $25.71 Elevator, HVAC systems, electrical, plumbing, data Building Structure $ 46.9 M $10.18 Foundation, basement, exterior, superstructure Interior $ 61.1 M $13.27 Interior finishes, equipment/furnishings, site conditions Total $241.1 M $52.30

Covers only 33 of the 159 FRF buildings – 5.5 million square feet. Represents 57% of FRF’s portfolio. 39

Initial Findings - Office Environment

• Out-of-date furniture
• Worn out carpet
• High workstation walls
• Little to no daylight
• Silos
• Depressing

Interior Office Space at Chattanooga State Office Building

40

Resulting Initiative – Project T3 Objectives

• Reduce Costs
• Migrate From Leased to Owned

Space

• Occupy Vacant Owned Space
• Update Office Environments
• Assist in Changing the Culture of

the Workplace

41

Resulting Initiative – Shed Obsolete Assets

Master Planning/Pre-planning Revealed Assets Ready for Disposition

42

Initial Outcome – Projected Savings Work performed under the Original Contract has resulted in initiatives (Project T-3 and Decommissioning) that will reduce State office space by at least 1.0 million square feet and a projected net 10-year savings greater than $100 million.

43

Contract Amendments

44

Amendments to Original Contract Amendments to the original contract were executed as additional funding became appropriated and available. These services were anticipated in the

• riginal contract.

45

Amendments to Original Contract

Amendments to Original Contract

Amendment Maximum Liability Increased Approved

Amendment 1

• Leadership of T3
• Pre-planning services for budget

2013/2014

• $3.5 million
• June 14, 2012

Amendment 2

• Clarified that JLL could receive lease

commissions

• $0.0
• November 19, 2012

Amendment 3

• Pre-planning services for budget

2014/2015

• $1.15 million
• December 17, 2012

Amendment 4

• Phase 2 Master Planning /Facility

Assessment

• Deleted Facilities Management from

Original Contract

• $1.0 million
• December 17, 2012

Amendment 5

• Project T3 Leadership Service to

Legislative Branch office spaces

• $1 million
• March 25, 2013

1

Amendment 1 – Outcome

• Construction in 9

State-owned buildings is 48.9% complete as

• f June 17, 2013
• Project T3 will be

complete by December 31, 2013

• More than 14,000

employees have been moved

Existing Stacking Plan for TN Tower – housing 1,150 people Post-T3 Stacking Plan for TN Tower – housing 1,875 people

Project T-3 Update:

47

Amendment 1 – Project T3 Update

BEFORE Inefficient and ineffective work spaces AFTER Collaborative, bright, modern work spaces

48

“The difference is even more than I thought it would be. It is so much brighter and fresher.” – Mary Beth Franklyn

Amendment 1 – Project T3 Update

Transforming Tennessee’s Workspace

49

“The new space has increased the ability of our staff to collaborate, and we think it has boosted

• productivity. It’s made a

noticeable, positive difference in

• ur overall office environment.”

– Hanseul Kang

Amendment 1 – Project T3 Update

BEFORE Adapted space in

• ffice area

AFTER Specifically designed modern, functional space

50

“The new office layout has improved communication and productivity and creates an efficient workspace.” – Tim McClure

Amendment 1 – Project T3 Update

Eliminated junk, storage issues, records management procrastination and mismatched furniture.

51

“Project T-3 has enabled us to move much more quickly towards electronic files and a more efficient workspace.”

• Buddy Lea

BEFORE AFTER

How Lease Commissions Work

Per Industry Standard:

• JLL runs the lease procurement process
• Lessor and JLL sign commission agreement
• Lessor pays JLL pursuant to commission

agreement

52

Facilities Management Contract Procurement

53

Facilities Management Contract Competitive Negotiation

Pursuant to Policy Number 2012-001 Central Procurement Office Contracting Communications and Negotiations Policy & Procedures for Procurements and Amendments: “Competitive Range” is defined to mean “those proposals that have a reasonable chance for contract award based on criteria set forth in the written solicitation document. Only proposals within the Competitive Range shall be considered for additional discussions and negotiation.”

Facilities Management Contract Procurement

54

Facilities Management Contract Procurement

Selection for CPO’s Competitive Negotiation

• Six respondents responded to the prior SBC RFP that included

Facilities Management in its scope formed the initial pool.

• Two best evaluated respondents (JLL & CBRE) determined to

be in the competition range for award.

• The third highest rated proposer was 11% lower than the next

highest evaluated technical score and was deemed to be

• utside the competitive range for consideration in the RFQ

process.

55

CBRE

• 60.65

JLL

• 59.83

Tetra Tech

• 52.9

Facilities Management Contract Procurement

Timeframe For Process

• November 2012: Preparation of RFQ
• January 7, 2013:

Discussions between CPO and Comptroller began to review changes to the RFQ

• January 22, 2013: RFQ was released to CBRE and JLL
• March 2013:

Presentations by both companies to State

• March 18, 2013:

Notice of intent to award sent to JLL

56

Contract Awarded to Jones Lang LaSalle

• n March 18, 2013

Facilities Management Contract Procurement

• Jones Lang LaSalle best evaluated with a composite score (technical and

cost) of 99.67.

• CBRE received a composite score (technical and cost) of 78.69
• JLL Pricing was $14.5 million (over five years) lower than CBRE’s pricing.
• Labor and Management Fee quote from JLL over five years was $36.7

million whereas CBRE quoted $51.2 million.

• JLL Management Fee of $660k annually is 50% fixed and 50% at-risk. JLL

must perform to specific performance goals to receive full fee. Goals include 23 performance indicators including cost savings, energy reduction, and customer satisfaction.

57

Outcomes Summary Conclusion

• Facilities Assessments and Master Planning led to Project T-3 and

Decommissioning, which combined, will save the State in excess of $100 million over ten (10) years.

• Facilities Management Outsourcing will save the State between the range
• f $50 million and $100 million over five (5) years. Additionally, the

expertise will reduce the State’s risk for non-compliance of Life Safety, Code, and other Standard Practices.

• Comprehensive Real Estate Services will lead to a safer, efficient and more

productive environment for State employees and significant savings to taxpayers.

Comprehensive, integrated real estate services allow the State of Tennessee to receive the “best possible service at the lowest possible cost.”

58

Cordell Hull and Central Services

59

Cordell Hull and Central Services

Two separate buildings in accounting, but a single building from an operational and maintenance standpoint… A facility assessment of the buildings recommended:

• That the buildings are now functionally obsolete. The building systems,

especially the mechanical, electrical, exterior envelope, and foundation are difficult to maintain and expensive to replace.

• Further, the floor plate design reflects a very different office style than is

currently utilized making the building inefficient in terms of density of

• ccupancy. Therefore, this building is expensive to continue to occupy, and

the occupants of the buildings are to be relocated.

Building Date Built Operating Cost per SF Deferred Maintenance Value of Building Approximate FTEs Gross SF Cordell Hull 1954 $8.60 $24,265,500 $3,200,000 to $3,500,000 1,062 348,606 Central Services 1961 $7.71 $13,210,000 $400,000 to $600,000 60 80,945

60

Industry Average Operating Cost is $5.77 per SF.

Cordell Hull and Central Services

“Both the Cordell Hull Building and the Central Services Building will require substantial capital investment in order to effectively continue their use and occupancy.”

Electrical Upgrades 1,700,000.00 $ Recommend replacement of roof as deteriorated and in poor condition. 350,000.00 $ Recommend review by a engineering\architectural firm specializing in fire life safety for project improvement plans. Probable cost is for firm to review and make design change recommendations to stairwell. 170,000.00 $ Egress\exit stairway in North tower has two awkward step downs at door openings and an area that may not be included in stairwell pressurization plan. This is very difficult to change as changes to the stairway would affect riser tread size. However, improved signage; warning, lighting and door hardware may improve the situation. Probable cost for door hardware, lighting, signage to implement immediately. 20,000.00 $ Perform testing and certification of backflow devices. 1,000.00 $ Relocate FDC to exterior of Gen enclosure with signage $ 10,000. 10,000.00 $ Repair stairwell pressurization and test after hours $5,000. 50,000.00 $ Repair flow switch $250 1,500.00 $ Engage an engineering\design firm to evaluate smoke evacuation system for correct function 300,000.00 $ Recommend Arc flash engineering study and service of electrical distribution system. Implement labeling and safety training program to meet arc flash requirements. 50,000.00 $ Probable cost to refurbish loading dock and exec parking lot 8,000.00 $ City of Nashville responsible for sidewalks on perimeter. North Egress path to sidewalk has a bad section at the lowest landing. Probable cost for sidewalk repairs 5,000.00 $ Total Deferred Maintenance 2,665,500.00 $ Included in 2013 Pre-Planning Budget: Cordell Hull Exterior Door Replacement 170,000.00 $ Cordell Hull Elevator System Modernization 3,080,000.00 $ Cordell Hull Waterproofing Building Foundation 2,850,000.00 $ Cordell Hull HVAC System Upgrades 10,000,000.00 $ Cordell Hull HVAC System Upgrades 3,650,000.00 $ Cordell Hull Fire Alarm System Replacement 1,850,000.00 $ Total Pre-Planning Costs 21,600,000.00 $ Total Costs 24,265,500.00 $

Cordell Hull Building

Capital Expenditures Required: $24,265,500

Recommend repair of dewatering pump system 15,000.00 $ Servicable, but recommend cleaning 5,000.00 $ Conduct fault current study and electrical safety (arc flash labeling and safety training program). 405,000.00 $ Time and material estimate to skim coat landing on 5th Ave where the concrete is not level 5,000.00 $ Total Deferred Maintenance 430,000.00 $ Included in 2013 Pre-Planning Budget: Central Services Plumbing Upgrade 6,800,000.00 $ Central Services Cable Upgrade 350,000.00 $ Central Services HVAC Upgrade 550,000.00 $ Central Services Exterior Waterproofing & Repairs 4,900,000.00 $ Central Services Replace Grease Pits 180,000.00 $ Total Pre-Planning Costs 12,780,000.00 $ Total Costs 13,210,000.00 $

Central Services

Capital Expenditures Required: $13,210,000 61