District Energy - 2007 First Quarter

ignore. In recent years, Howard University has confronted its deferred maintenance problems and taken measures to remove the elephant from the living room by developing and implementing an infrastructure upgrade plan.

Figure 1. Percent of Deferred Maintenance Costs by Building System, Howard University, 2001.

^Plumbing: ²^{.8% Roofs:} ⁶U^{. 7}nknown Systems: 0.1%

Others: 26.3% Electrical: 10.3%

Exterior: 4.7%

Beyond Repair

Academic institutions in general, especially historical ones, have tended to grow very tolerant of the dysfunctional status quo when it comes to failing infrastructure. Unless the infrastructure condition deteriorates to the point that it interferes with the education of students, the old adage “it has to get worse before it gets better” seems to be the reality.

Howard University faced exactly this scenario before its infrastructure upgrade plan emerged. In 1998, mechanical systems had deteriorated beyond the limits of economical repairs in a major building housing the university’s fine arts program. Though a fast-track design and ensuing procurement and construction completely modernized the heating, ventilation, air-conditioning (HVAC) and ancillary systems and resolved the issue, the incident was a reality check that prompted the university to take a serious look at its backlog of deferred maintenance projects.

A university-wide analysis of the condition of campus building systems was conducted using external resources, and the conclusions were submitted to the university in April 2001. The resulting findings were not at all unexpected. More than 50 percent of the buildings on campus are more than 40 years old. The failed internal building systems were found to be directly associated with older buildings. There was a direct correlation between the facilities condition index (FCI) and the age of the buildings. (FCI=deferred maintenance/current replacement value.)

The building systems that are dynamic in nature – such as electrical, mechanical and ancillary piping systems – showed the most functional obsolescence. (See fig. 1.) The HVAC systems alone accounted for more than 30 percent of the total cost of the university’s deferred maintenance.

Once the enormity of Howard University’s failing infrastructure was realized, the facilities management group collectively decided to further prioritize the most critical buildings. The criteria

Fixed Equipment: 7.5%

Life/Safe₆ty_./ ₅R_%egulatory:

Interior: 3.0%

HVAC: 30.7%

Grounds: 1.4%

E _El F _Gi^xe

_Uouh/rCnEra _nomeSio^:dr _knfsbsar _:3sq: ^l

_{P RlteeAudr}r_ii _oc

H _{I Ln}V^rxtc_oeet

_Oif^t

_:u4: _o:i:f _e3⁰_n2t..1i.1 _p70 _w6g6y07.4m%.3% _n.7: ^./_S%23R%%%ent: 7.5% _.%egulatory: 6.5% 8% ystems: 0.1%

Source: Howard University.

used in the prioritization process were to ensure ( 1) safe and comfortable work environments, ( 2) completion of any needed roof repairs, and ( 3) compliance with all new regulatory codes. Upgrading the HVAC systems, as well as the electrical and life-safety systems, then emerged as a ‘must-do’ working model based primarily on a building’s deteriorating condition.

Failing energy infrastructure with outdated regulatory components, the need for new code enforcements and rising energy costs forced Howard University to address its deferred maintenance woes. In response, the university developed an infrastructure upgrade plan encompassing all these issues and re-examining the university’s energy portfolio.

Failing energy infrastructure
with outdated regulatory
components, the need for
new code enforcements and
rising energy costs forced
Howard University to address
its deferred maintenance woes.

The Plan

The original infrastructure upgrade plan, which included 15 buildings, was developed in late 2002, with funding approved in 2003. The funding level was

an annual allocation of approximately $6.5 million for the following seven years, totaling $45.5 million. Construction began in June 2003, and four buildings were renovated by October 2006: Blackburn University Center; Inabel Burns Lindsay Hall, which houses the School of Social Work; the chemical engineering wing of the L.K. Downing Hall; and the Seeley G. Mudd Building, part of the College of Medicine.

This original plan, however, was initially funded using internal resources. By the end of this three-year period, it was realized that, although the projects were making substantive progress, their cost was a big drain on the institution’s annual capital budget. The pace of progress was deemed too slow for the patience level of deans and directors occupying ‘critical’ buildings awaiting upgrade.

An opportune change-of-guard at the university’s senior vice president level triggered a re-examination of the financing options. As a result, an accelerated plan evolved, which included the upgrade of 10 additional major buildings, scheduled for completion by the end of 2008. This accelerated approach meant the funding had to be in place.

Thanks to the university’s excellent credit rating, District of Columbia Revenue Bonds could be used to finance the infrastructure upgrade plan so that it could be completed over a two-year period. Within two months, with the formal approval of the university’s president