Presentation name or presenter name

1
COBCP Training
September 27-28, 2006
2
Agenda-Wednesday, September 27th

• Introductions
• Overview
• Systemwide enrollment trends
• Understanding the Evaluation Tools
• LUNCH
• Feasibility Studies
• Preparing a COBCP A campus perspective
• Q A

3
Agenda-Thursday, September 28th

• COBCP Project Simulation
• Review COBCP forms
• Sample project exercise
• LUNCH
• COBCP Project Simulation (contd)
• Wrap-up/Q A

4
Triangle Training

• Introductions
• Workshop Ways and Means
• Systemwide Enrollment Trends
• Trustee Policies
• Capital Budgeting
• Rebenching Grad FTE
• Break

5
OUTPUTS
1- 4
2 - 7
1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-3, 2-4, 2-6, 2-23
COST ESTIMATE
PROCESSES
DETERMINE DELIVERY METHOD
SUMMARIZE OBJECTIVES
FEASIBILITY STUDY
NEW ASF/GSF Cost Guide Donor funding Design
Contingency
RENOVATE Maintenance costs Pacific
Partners Academic direction Surge space
OPTIONS Alternatives Sustainability
DEFINE PROJECT INTENT - CAMPUS NEED
INPUTS
CPDC 1-2 deficit/surplus
ASF per FTE lab/lab utilization
SFDB/APDB academic need
YRO Status
6
SYSTEMWIDE ENROLLMENT TRENDS
7

• In a word

8
Falling!
9
Enrollment Drives Capital Planning

• Multiyear enrollment projections are based on the
  Governors Compact
• Systemwide average annual growth
• 2.5 until 2010/11
• 2.9 from 2010/11 to 2011/12
• Small campuses given greater growth

10
CSU Enrollment
11
CSU Capacity vs. Enrollment
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14

15
Cost of Construction

• 30 Inflation from 05/06, material and labor
  costs impacting projects budgeted more than 2
  years ago
• Increases in construction industry continue
• 06/07 DOF approved 5 annual increase, escalated
  to midpoint of construction
• 5 increase in 07/08 cost guide
• Bid results and cost studies lead to 08/09 cost
  guide escalation increase by 10

16
Trustee Policy Re Demographic Forecasts/Cost
Escalation

• Trustees response Live within budget
  constraints limit growth to 2.5 annual per
  compact w/governor
• Improve utilization of existing facilities
  maximize Friday evening classes
• Expand Year Round Operation (YRO) 20 of CY for
  rural, 40 for urban campuses
• Expand Web based classes, distance learning
• Divert growth to newer campuses, Off-campus
  centers

17
Campus Planning Response

• Large campuses plan for growth, raise FTE ceiling
  to 35,000
• Friday/evening utilization unchanged
• YRO declines unmet obligations
• Distance learning marginal, 1,600 FTE added in 5
  years
• Off campus centers decline, small campuses lose
  FTE

18
Classroom utilization unchanged
19
Year Round Operation
20
Distance Learning Slow to Grow
21
Off Campus Centers Decline
22
Capital Project Priority Setting

• Trustees annually approve Categories and Criteria
  for setting priorities
• Seismic, Fire/Life Safety projects
• Complete previously funded projects
• Balance growth for enrollment against renovation
  and capital renewal needs
• Campuses limited on number of projects

23
State Capital Funding

• 156 million remaining from G.O. Bonds (1998,
  2002, 2004) to fund priority projects
• 20 million for infrastructure, minor capital
  outlay
• 24 million for bond administration (2)
• 112 million for reserves and claims

24
State Capital Funding (contd)

• 690 million proposed from 2006 GO Bond to fund
  projects
• 284 million for 2006/07 funded projects
• 323 million for 2007/08 proposed projects
• 14 million for bond administration (2)
• 69 million for reserves and claims

25
State Funding Summary and Five-Year Program
Request
26
Nonstate Funding Summary and 5-Year Program
Request
27
2008/09-2009/10 Budget Scenarios

• 690 million forecast from 2008/09 GO Bond
• 290 million for 2007/08 to complete in 2008
• 102 million for 2007/08 to complete in 2009
• 14 million for bond administration (2)
• 23 million for 301 reserves

28
2008/09-2009/10 Budget Scenarios (contd)

• 261 million remaining plus 130 million from
  prior GO Bond reserves available to fund
• 102 million for 2008 to fund 14 2007/08 COBCPs
• 264 million for 09/10 to continue those projects
• 335 million for 10/11 to complete the 14
  projects
• Results in 310 million deficit for 10/11

29
Capital Budgeting Options

• Fund critical, high priority projects in 2008/09
• Reduce project scope/budgets. Simplify design
• Fund renovation/renewal versus new buildings
• Seek nonstate, energy, donor funds to augment
• Spread PWC funding over multiyear period

30
Rebenching

• Why rebenching?
• Based on Legislatures agreement, CSU should
  count Graduate Student FTES in the same way as UC
  and the rest of the nation. Support budget
  benefits.
• How will rebenching work?
• Prior 1 Graduate Student FTES 15 Credit hours
• New 1 Graduate Student FTES 12 Credit hours

31
Rebenching (contd)

• What is the impact to capital planning?
• Master Plan Ceiling will rise
• Multiyear Enrollment Projection impacted
• Space Entitlement for Graduate Research/Faculty
  Offices may increase, Graduate classes decline
• Planning Tools and CPDC forms (2-1 2-2)
• When will rebenching impact capital planning?
• Revised Multiyear Planning Estimates that reflect
  rebenching will be available in Spring 2007
• Impacts capital planning 2008/09 final budget

32
ENROLLMENT PLANNING QUESTIONS?
33
UNDERSTANDING EVALUATION TOOLS
34
23 Campuses (Clients)
Board of Trustees (BOT)
Legislative Analysts Office (LAO)

FACILITIES PLANNING Liaison
AE, Construction Management Energy
Department of Finance (DOF)
Finance Treasury (FT)
Land Use Planning and Environment
Resources (LUPER)
35
Capital Outlay
Capital Renewal
Major Cap
Minor Cap
STATE
NON STATE
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional

• upgrade/
• replace building systems
• 1 year to encumber-2 to liquidate

• renovate/
• upgrade

• Parking

• Capacity -FTE

• Capacity -FTE

• Student Housing

• Infrastructure

• Under 400,000

• Student Union

• Library

• Corporation Yard

• Acquisition

• 1 year to encumber-2 to liquidate

• Administration

Auxiliaries

• Acquisition

• Bookstore

Nursing

• Energy

• Faculty/Staff Housing

• 1 year to encumber-
• 2 to liquidate

• Capacity -FTE

36
Evaluating a project with the various tools

• SUAM
• March BOT Agenda (List of Academic Programs)
• Summary of Campus Capacity (CPDC 1-2)
• Lab-Lab Book
• ASF/FTE Model
• Utilization

37
SUAM

• SUAM - State University Administrative Manual
• Periodic updates by CPDC as needed
• Section VI http//www.calstate.edu/cpdc/suam/SUAM
  9060-9079.pdf

38
SUAM Section VI Standards For Campus
Development Programs
39
SUAM Appendix B Space Standards Chart

• The CPEC (CA Postsecondary Education Commission)
  and Legislature-approved space standards are used
  to calculate the type of space in a facility, and
  its size.
• Identifies appropriate assignable square footage
  per HEGIS (Higher Education General Information
  Survey) and space types, e.g., administrative
  office/faculty office/conference rooms, library
  space, etc.
• Identifies non capacity space, e.g., art gallery
  and science museum.

40
Psychology
41
CPDC2-3
42
March BOT Agenda(List of Academic Programs)
Campus
43

• Planning Tools
• CPDC 1-2 (Summary of Capacity)
• Lab Lab Book (Lab Enrollment vs. Lab Capacity)
• ASFperFTE Model
• Utilization Report

SFDB (Space and Facilities Database)
MYP (Multiyear Enrollment Projection)
APDB (Academic Planning Database)
44
What is a CPDC 1-2?

• Companion document to the Capital Outlay Program
  and 5-Year Capital Improvement Program
• Used to evaluate programs
• Reflects annual FTES capacity changes resulting
  from proposed capital projects
• Identifies capacity
• Lecture, Teaching Lab (LD and UD), Faculty
  Offices
• Available on the website
• http//www.calstate.edu/cpdc/Facilities_Planning/
  Space_Mgmt/Reports/campus_SumCap.shtml

45
CPDC 1-2 Main Components

• Capacity
• SFDB Physical Capacity
• Uninventoried Projects Capacity
• Proposed Projects Capacity
• Summer Enrollment Responsibility

• Enrollment
• APDB Reported Enrollment
• MYP

SFDB - Space and Facility Database
APDB - Academic Planning Database MYP -
Multiyear Enrollment Projection
46
CPDC 1-2
SFDB Physical Capacity
Enrollment
Summer Enrollment Responsibility
Capacity of Projects
47
Lab/Lab Book Main Components

• LAB Capacity
• SFDB Physical Capacity
• Uninventoried Projects Capacity
• Proposed Projects Capacity
• Summer Enrollment Responsibility

• LAB Enrollment
• APDB Reported Enrollment
• MYP

http//www.calstate.edu/cpdc/Facilities_Planning/S
pace_Mgmt/Reports/LabFTES.shtml
48
Lab/Lab Book
Capacity / Target Year Enrollment
Target Year Enrollment
Capacity
HEGIS Category
Proposed project
Specific HEGIS Codes planned in the proposed
project
49
ASF/FTE Model

• An internal CSU planning tool used in parallel to
  station count capacity analysis
• Concept use campuswide assignable square feet
  per full-time equivalent student (ASF/FTE) to
  evaluate space needs and project space
  requirements
• Provide campuswide ASF snapshot
• For instruction documentation
• http//www.calstate.edu/cpdc/Suam/Appendices/App_B
  -Restructure_Campus_Capacities.pdf

50
Utilization Report

• Reports to the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO)
  biannually
• Utilization of instructional physical capacity
  funded through the Capital Outlay Program
• Instructional space
• Classrooms space type 0001 0004
• Teaching Lab space type 0010

51
Utilization Report (contd)

• Utilization of classrooms and teaching
  laboratories for the fall term versus
  legislatively approved standards
• Documents the use of space and the needs for
  space relative to master planned growth

52
Utilization Report
APDB
SFDB
Utilization as a of Standard
53
Available Utilization Reports

• Summary reports by campus
• Detail reports by each facility
• Detail reports by each space in a facility
• Available after the fall term SFDB update and
  fall term APDB report are complete and reconciled

54
Sample Utilization Reports by Building/Space
55
Case Study

• Our sample program consists of programmatic space
  for Communications, Foreign Languages and
  Letters, as well as faculty offices.

56
Campus Proposed Project
ASFperFTE Model
CPDC 1-2 Campus Proposed
Utilization Report
Lab/Lab Campus Proposed
57
CPDC Recommended
CPDC 1-2 Recommended
Lab/Lab - Recommended
58
CPDC 1-2 Comparison (Proposed vs. Recommended)
Proposed
Recommended
59
EVALUATION TOOLS QUESTIONS?
60
LUNCH
61
FEASIBILITY STUDIES
62
Feasibility StudiesGeneral Topics

• Project Description
• Purpose
• Alternatives
• Existing Building Deficiencies
• Geographic Soil Conditions

• Accessibility
• Proposed Building Details
• Project Costs
• Pre-Schematic Design
• Sustainability

63
Feasibility Studies New Projects

• Provide justification for any variation from the
  current cost guide
• Design contingency - 15 in feasibility study
  cost estimate
• Detail all alternatives
• Provide space standards and cost guides to the
  consultants
• Provide sustainability checklist per CSUPER (CSU
  Program for Environmental Review)

64
Feasibility Studies Renovation Projects

• Address the risk if nothing is done
• Justify any costs that exceed 65 of the current
  cost guide
• Design contingency - 15 in feasibility study
  cost estimate
• Identify sustainability measures that will be
  incorporated into the project - CSUPER
• Detail all alternatives

65
San Diego Science
66
Sonoma Darwin Hall
67
Sonoma Salazar Hall
68
Nonstate Funds For State Projects

• Things to keep in mind
• Cost per sq. ft. for nonstate space must be equal
  or greater to the cost per sq. ft. of state space
• Expectations on size, design and delivery need to
  be understood by all parties (donors)

69
FEASIBILITY STUDIES QUESTIONS?
70
CAPITAL RENEWAL
71
Capital Renewal
2006 CSU Facilities Renewal Resource Model Update
Accumulated Deferred Maintenance Backlog by
Subsystem (State Space Only)

• 2005 systemwide cap. renewal deferred
  maintenance (CRDM) need is 1,303,000,000

72
Capital Renewal

• 50,000,000 systemwide available each year in
  Capital Renewal Program
• Funding taken off top of capital outlay fund pool
  of 345,000,000
• 2,000,000 NTE limit per campus per year

73
Capital Renewal

• Campus submits 5-year Capital Renewal Program
  each year as part of COBCP submittal
• Each years Capital Renewal submittal includes
• 1-1 list of projects for each of the 5 years
• 2-7 for each project in each year
• 1-4 for each project in each year
• Supporting documentation
• Pacific Partners Data
• Photos
• Trouble call records

74
Capital Renewal

• 1-1
• Can have more than 1 project per year
• Aggregate budget in each year lt 2,000,000
• Single system renewal gt 2,000,000 can be
• phased across budget cycles
• Example Entire HVAC system in bldg.X needs
  replacement at estimated cost of 3,500,000.
• Replace equipment controls in budget year 1 for
  2,000,000
• Replace distribution system in budget year 2 for
  1,500,000

75
Capital Renewal

• 2-7
• Project title starts with Capital Renewal
• Schedule
• Capital Renewal funds expire at end of fiscal
  year of appropriation
• Construction contract must be encumbered before
  June 30 of fiscal year
• Schedule of Construction Start must be before
  June 30

76
Capital Renewal

• 2-7 (Continued)
• Budget inputs placed on appropriate Uniformat
  line(s) Example
• HVAC Line D30 HVAC Systems
• Doors, windows Line B20 Exterior enclosure
• Consultant tasks cost basis should be discussed
  in the 1-4
• Evaluate HazMat implications and input cost as
  needed on line F2020, p.1 and additional services
  p.2
• Basis of HazMat costs or lack thereof should be
  discussed in the 1-4

77
Capital Renewal

• 2-7 (contd)
• Override automatic calculations as necessary
• Example - No MSR, commissioning, seismic, DSA
  needed for replacement of doors windows, etc.

78
CAPITAL RENEWAL QUESTIONS?
79
NURSING
80
Nursing Education InitiativeThe Problem
Californias major challenge is to expand
educational capacity in nursing programs

• California needs at least 9,000 RNs annually, but
  our nursing programs only graduate close to 6,000
  nurses per year
• Nursing programs are at capacity, and an average
  of 40 percent of applicants are denied admission
  each year
• A lack of clinical lab space, classrooms and
  qualified faculty contribute to the limited
  educational capacity

Source Labor and Workforce Development Agency,
2005
81
Nursing Education InitiativeThe Solution
The Governors Nursing Education Initiative

• Help colleges and universities expand educational
  capacity
• Recruit more qualified instructors
• Develop new avenues to nursing careers
• Seek additional funds for nurse education from
  the federal government and other funding sources

Source Labor and Workforce Development Agency,
2005
82
Nursing Education InitiativeThe Solution
Expand Educational Capacity

• 90 million project to expand capacity in
  Community Colleges
• 19 grants awarded statewide
• Yield an estimated 2,400 nurses after 5 years
• Allocated funds to expand Masters and Bachelors
  programs at CSU and UC
• At least 440 new enrollment slots created

Source Labor and Workforce Development Agency,
2005
83
Nursing Capital Projects

• Basic Submittal Documents
• 1-4 Narrative Description
• 2-7 Project Budget
• 2-4 Summary of Space Requirement
• Additional Supporting Documents
• Photos of existing conditions or proposed rooms
• Floor plans of proposed spaces

84
Nursing Capital Projects

• Analytical Tools for program justification
• 1-2 Summary of Campus Capacity
• Lab Enrollment/Lab Capacity
• Lab Utilization Report

85
Nursing Capital Projects

• CPDC 1-4
• Summary of Proposal should include data on
  proposal asf/gsf, FTE, cost and specific nursing
  programs to be addressed, i.e., pre-licensure,
  undergraduate, graduate program.
• Alternatives section should thoroughly discuss
  all reasonable options from continuing status
  quo, to building renovation/new, etc.
• Basis of Cost Estimate should describe method to
  determine cost, i.e., professional estimate, R.H.
  Means, cost guide, etc.

86
Nursing Capital Projects
87
Nursing Capital Projects
88
Nursing Capital Projects

• Nursing Classroom Types
• Skills Lab
• Simulation Lab
• Smart Classroom
• Computer Testing Center

89
Nursing Capital Projects

• Skills Lab
• Definition Nursing skills labs are used
  primarily for introducing students to the various
  procedures and duties performed on the job. The
  skills lab environment allows for practice of
  techniques and procedures. Students may or may
  not use mannequins to learn skills. Skills labs
  are necessary for campuses that offer the Direct
  Entry BSN and MSN programs, as these are programs
  that accept students who have a Bachelors degree,
  but do not have an RN.

90
Nursing Capital Projects

• Skills Lab

• Amenities
• Cabinets
• Work Spaces
• Lighting
• Outlets
• Plumbing (foot valves)
• Eye wash stations

91
Nursing Capital Projects

• Simulation Lab
• Definition Nursing simulation labs are designed
  to look and function like hospital rooms.
  Mannequins that simulate various medical
  scenarios make it possible for students to
  experience a real hospital or emergency room
  scenario. Instructors can set-up and watch the
  scenarios from an observation station or room.
  Simulation labs are necessary for campuses that
  offer both an RN licensure and a BSN/MSN. For
  students who are already licensed and seeking a
  degree, the simulation lab is used to verify
  knowledge of skills and procedures.

92
Nursing Capital Projects

• Simulation Lab

• Amenities
• Cabinets
• Work Spaces/hospital beds
• Lighting
• Outlets
• Plumbing (foot valves)
• Video observation
• Control/Observation Room
• Prep Room
• Record student lab interactions
• Eye Wash

93
Nursing Capital Projects

• Smart Classroom
• Definition Smart classrooms are typically
  lecture classrooms with technological upgrades.
  These classrooms may be capable of video and
  computer presentations, laptop and/or internet
  connectivity, special lighting features,
  teleconferencing/distance learning. Students who
  are already an RN and are seeking an MSN degree
  will likely take more lecture courses than
  laboratory courses.

94
Nursing Capital Projects

• Smart Classroom

Amenities Data Connectivity Work
Spaces Lighting Outlets
95
NURSING QUESTIONS?
96
See you at Happy Hour. We start again at 830am
tomorrow.
97
OUTPUTS
1- 4
2 - 7
1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-3, 2-4, 2-6, 2-23
COST ESTIMATE
PROCESSES
DETERMINE DELIVERY METHOD
SUMMARIZE OBJECTIVES
FEASIBILITY STUDY
NEW ASF/GSF Cost Guide Donor funding Design
Contingency
RENOVATE Maintenance costs Pacific
Partners Academic direction Surge space
OPTIONS Alternatives Sustainability
DEFINE PROJECT INTENT - CAMPUS NEED
INPUTS
CPDC 1-2 deficit/surplus
ASF per FTE lab/lab utilization
SFDB/APDB academic need
YRO Status
98
Agenda-Thursday, September 28th

• COBCP Project Simulation
• Review COBCP forms
• Sample project exercise
• LUNCH
• COBCP Project Simulation (contd)
• Wrap-up/Q A

99
HANDS-ON TRAINING
100
(No Transcript)
101
(No Transcript)
102
(No Transcript)
103
(No Transcript)
104
(No Transcript)
105
(No Transcript)
106
(No Transcript)
107
CPDC 2-7.5
108
CPDC 2-7 CM _at_ Risk
109
CM _at_ Risk...2-7

• A major Capital project can come forward for
  funding on several different paths
• A new project, not proposed before, with
  feasibility study to support its need, program
  and cost estimate to support its budget
• A new project without feasibility study or cost
  estimate and budget proposal based on cost
  guideline
• A continuing project proposed in previous budget
  year(s), but not yet funded and proposed again in
  the current budget cycle.

110
CPDC 2-7 CM _at_ Risk

• Project costs developed from a professional cost
  estimate generally assume a Design/Bid/Build
  delivery method
• Estimates often assume general contractors
  percentage for general conditions, overhead, and
  profit
• Sometimes this percentage is expressed as a
  discrete line item and other times it is subsumed
  in the uniformat subsystem line items.

111
CPDC 2-7 CM _at_ Risk

• The CM _at_ Risk 2-7 automatically calculates CM
  fees
• CM fees are comprised of
• Preconstruction services
• Construction services
• CMs contingency
• CMs overhead profit

112
CPDC 2-7 CM _at_ Risk

• A project with a cost estimate that is to be CM _at_
  Risk must strip costs out of the estimate for
  contractors general conditions, overhead and
  profit
• A project budget based on cost guide will need to
  extract the 9 for contractors GCs and OHP
• Continuing projects will need to research
  original source of budget estimate and strip out
  general conditions

113
CPDC 2-7 CM _at_ Risk

• CM _at_ Risk projects require a series of two 2-7s
• The initial budgetary 2-7 is based on assumed CM
  fee percentages
• The working 2-7 is adjusted to reflect the
  contractual CM percentages from the winning
  proposal

114
CPDC 2-7 CM _at_ Risk

• Standard 2-7 and CM _at_ Risk 2-7 differences
• HARD COSTS
• Standard 2-7 Contractor GCs represented on
  uniformat Z10 immediately above line 1 (total
  building) and included in cost of total building.
• CM _at_ Risk 2-7 Contractor GCs represented on
  uniformat Z10 located on line 6 BELOW total
  construction

115
CPDC 2-7 CM _at_ Risk

• SOFT COSTS
• Standard 2-7
• Lines 6a 6b A/E basic fees during PW C,
  respectively, calculated from fee schedule on p.2
• Line 6d construction contingency held by the
  campus
• CM _at_ Risk 2-7
• Lines 8a 8b includes A/E basic fees CM fee
  for preconstruction services and construction
  management, respectively, calculated from
  separate fee schedule on p.2
• Construction contingency held by the campus CM
  are on Line 8d 6a, respectively

116
(No Transcript)
117
(No Transcript)
118
CPDC 2-7 CM _at_ Risk

• Input bid proposal form for CM _at_ Risk
• Highlight in succession the fee cells

119
CPDC 2-7 CM _at_ Risk

• The working 2-7 will use the fees from the fee
  proposal form of the awarded proposal to input
  into
• Z10
• P.2 CM preconstruction construction fees
• Line 8d 6a

120
CPDC 2-7 CM _at_ Risk

• Postscript
• Final adjustment to 2-7 at award of GMAX
• Construction phase services is of GMAX
• Adjust p.2 construction fee schedule to reflect
  actual
• Adjust total construction, Z10, and CM
  contingency
• Adjust campus contingency

121
(No Transcript)
122
LUNCH
123
The Meat and Potatoes of a COBCP
124
CPDC 1-4
125
OUTPUTS
2 - 7
1- 4
1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-3, 2-4, 2-6, 2-23
COST ESTIMATE
PROCESSES
DETERMINE DELIVERY METHOD
SUMMARIZE OBJECTIVES
FEASIBILITY STUDY
NEW ASF/GSF Cost Guide Donor funding Design
Contingency
RENOVATE Maintenance costs Pacific
Partners Academic direction Surge space
OPTIONS Alternatives Sustainability
DEFINE PROJECT INTENT - CAMPUS NEED
INPUTS
CPDC 1-2 deficit/surplus
ASF per FTE lab/lab utilization
SFDB/APDB academic need
YRO Status
126
CPDC 1-4 Summary of Proposal

• Brief overview of project statistics, including
  ASF/GSF, program scope and secondary effects.
• Comparable to project budget year description in
  Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.
• See examples in appendix.

127
A. Purpose of Project

• State problem in terms of entitlement
  deficiencies, seismic/ADA compliance, building
  condition, Pacific Partners report
• Program need for modernization/renovation
• Critical infrastructure deficiency, new academic
  growth

128
B. Relationship to Strategic Plan

• Correlation with Academic Master Plan
• Interface with Utility Master Plan
• Support of Campus Master Plan
• CEQA compliance

129
C. Project Data

• Background of how project need was determined
• Relevant historical data, project specific
  details from feasibility study
• Detailed scope description
• ASF/GSF, location, massing, utilities
• Program FTE, lecture, lab, office and support
  facilities
• Exceptional materials, equipment or construction
  requirements

130
Proposed project schedule

• Schedule based on delivery method, fund life,
  project size
• Schematic presentation, BOT and PWB approval dates

131
D. Alternatives

• Describe alternative and secondary effects
  including scope, cost, funding source, program
  benefits, and impacts
• Provide supporting documentation for all
  alternatives

132
E. Recommended Solution

• Justification of preferred alternative
• Uniformat cost estimate as basis for cost
  information
• Factors/benefits for recommended solution other
  than cost
• Sustainable features and impact on support budget
• Identify any project risks, hazmat, seismic
  conditions
• Mandatory reviews and approvals SFM, DSA, SRB,
  MRB

133
CPDC 1-4 DOs

• Include photos
• Include charts, graphs, and other appropriate
  media to support project
• - Campus enrollment
• - Department growth
• - Space type need
• - Academic vision statement
• Include cost per GSF, net FTE, and Cost Data
  conclusions in the opening summary
• Provide justification for new vs. renovation
• Historical maintenance costs
• Age of facility
• Pacific Partners
• Seismic requirements

134
CPDC 1-4 DOs (contd)

• Thoroughly review Alternatives
• Reference studies, reports, estimates
• Schedule
• - In narrative format, discuss schedule and why
  it should be considered credible.
• Assertion of need (space/FTE/cost)
• - Support with factual data
• Cost estimate
• - Discuss basis of cost estimate and cost
  relative to the CSU Cost Guide

135
CPDC 1-4 DOs (contd)

• Demonstrate support for trustees policies and
  initiatives
• Sustainability
• Summer enrollment
• Improved utilization
• Seismic hazard reduction
• Renovation/renewal of aging facilities
• Nursing education

136
CPDC 1-4 DONTs

• Dont include the campus maintenance oversights
  as a justification for the new project
• Dont direct reader to please see attached
  Feasibility Study
• Dont re-format or make edits improving the 1-4
  (bold headings, italics, etc)
• Dont use florid prose, unsubstantiated opinions,
  or non-germane data. Be descriptive in a factual
  and forthright manner

137
(No Transcript)
138
(No Transcript)
139
(No Transcript)
140
(No Transcript)
141
(No Transcript)
142
(No Transcript)
143
(No Transcript)
144
(No Transcript)
145
www.calstate.edu