Everything is moving in the right direction. You have put together capital budgets for a new ambulatory care center and new hospital that you believe will be approved by your capital allocation committee and board to begin in 2014. These capital projects are a focus of your organization in an effort to consolidate underutilized facilities that are geographically misplaced as a result of a recent merger with your former friendly competitor in the adjacent county.
As you spend Friday afternoon thinking about your team's accomplishment preparing this solid approval package, you are brought back to reality with a new email that hits the inbox.
The email is from your CFO who has just wrapped up a conversation with one of his old college buddies working for a health system in the southern part of the U.S. He claims they are constructing two similar projects for far less than the budget you have submitted when comparing on a cost/SF and cost/bed comparison and about eight months earlier than your planned overall schedule. All the work you have completed with your team is now coming into question and you need to be prepared to support your position or lose credibility with your CFO. Where do you start?
Keep Calm and Ask Questions
Something just does not seem right about your CFO's information. You know the contractor that did the work on the project the CFO referenced and immediately know that is step one to providing some insight as to how they could provide pricing that was so much lower and a schedule that was faster for this other organization. After attempting to call your contact at the contractor, you spend the weekend with no resolution. On Monday morning, you finally reach your contact and present him with the following questions:
* What is the completed construction cost for both comparable facilities? You find out from the contractor that the ambulatory care center was constructed for $150/SF and the hospital for $305/SF. This compares to your cost estimates of $225/SF for the ambulatory care center $450/SF for the hospital. At this point you see why your CFO was a bit upset, but understand there must be more to it.
* What was the size and scope of both comparable facilities? You find out that both facilities are roughly the same size as the two for which you are seeking approval. However, there are some key differences that give you comfort. The ambulatory care center is being developed by a third party, and they are leasing to physicians. Therefore, the construction cost breakdown only includes a $45/SF tenant fit-out allowance. Also, site work was not included in the number provided by the contractor. It was another $10/SF. Since your organization is developing the ambulatory care center and paying for complete fit-out of the tenant spaces at an average of $90/SF, you quickly catch a difference that can be explained. Your site is a bit more difficult with topography and rock, so your site work cost is $15/SF.
For the hospital, you find out that the comparable project includes two shelled floors that represent a total of 55,000 SF and in the future would add 64 beds. These metrics were included in the $/SF and $/bed metrics provided to your CFO. Your hospital, on the other hand, includes no shell space or future bed counts. At this point you begin to feel much better.
* When was the buy-out of the comparable projects and did you use union or non-union labor? The comparable projects were bought out in 2013 and your projects are not scheduled to be bought out until 2015. This is another encouraging sign for your future meeting with the CFO to explain these differences, as you assumed escalation of 3.5% per year based on 2013 cost data. In addition, you find out that the contractor was able to use non-union labor on the comparable projects and your market will require a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) and use of union labor. Depending on the market, this can account for a 15-30% variation in estimated labor costs. Surely the CFO accounted for these variations when comparing the costs he received from his friend.
* What were some of the features of the building design? The contractor quickly points out that the comparable facilities are built in a very basic manner and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are code minimum. The organization he is working with has a tried-and-true approach to capital facilities with design standards in place they have utilized for years. They focus on keeping first costs down and are in markets where competition is not as fierce. On the other hand, your planned facilities are required to be LEED accredited. Furthermore, your organization is in a highly competitive market where patients from a preferred payer mix are looking for amenities and your donor base only wants their name associated with signature buildings. This alone accounts for another difference of about 10%-12% in your estimated cost and the cost of the comparable facilities.
* Did the construction cost include things like low-voltage systems or kitchen equipment for the new hospital? The contractor says that he included low-voltage systems to the extent they would rough in for nurse call and other such communication systems, but they did include cable installation or providing the packaged systems. He did say his number included kitchen equipment, while you had this included as a separate line item. This was another win for your case. In addition, your preferred buy-out approach is for the contractor to provide all low-voltage scope and the only cost you include outside of your construction budget is for network equipment, computers, and any clinical informatics systems. These are all handled by your internal IT department. Another fact that provides you with more rationale for the higher costs you have estimated.
* What about the schedule? You ask the contractor about his construction schedule and you find out that your estimate is only three months longer. Given weather patterns for your northern climate, this may even be a bit aggressive for you on second thought. As you try to figure out the additional five-month discrepancy you realize that your CFO was probably looking at the overall project schedule, including design and approvals and not just construction. With both facilities in states that have similar timetables for approval, it could not be that. The contractor then mentioned how they had a close relationship with the local planning board and how easy they were to deal with. After that statement you realized this probably was accounting for the remaining difference. The process for approvals in your municipality includes review by a planning and design board and you are also in a special historic district. Armed with this final piece of the puzzle you then prepare to meet with your CFO.
Preparing to Deliver the Message
Relieved that you now understand the difference between your projects and the comparable projects, you are still concerned that you have no solid solution as to how to present this information to your CFO at your meeting in two days. At home that evening, your wife, who is car shopping, asks you to review some online information with her. She shows you a comparison of two vehicles, side-by-side; with a list of features and a simple check box for the model that includes those features. There is also a comment column with explanations for each feature listed. It then hits you! You thank your wife and get your laptop fired up and prepare the information in this manner.
In your meeting with the CFO, you use the side-by-side comparison model you had viewed the evening before. Quickly, the CFO realizes the projects were not as far out of line as he once thought. In fact, when the comparison was made in the proper context, he actually requested that you go back and ensure the numbers would support the organization's vision with an adequate contingency at this stage in the process. Upon completing his request you forward him the revised package for board approval.
The Moral of the Story
If you have not been involved in a story like the one above, directly or indirectly, you probably have not been involved in the capital project delivery process during your career. In the Internet generation, vast amounts of data and information are only a search engine away. We believe this can actually be counterproductive when it is used in the wrong manner.
It is important to evaluate benchmarks closely when utilizing them to develop or compare a capital project plan. We touched on only a few of the items that may impact a project. Some additional concerns are as follows:
* How much new equipment and furniture is included in the budget versus reuse?
* Does the budget include land costs?
* Does the budget include financing costs?
* Are you capitalizing in-house project management and IT staff's labor effort to the project budget?
You begin to get the picture that it is one thing to have the data, but quite another to have the knowledge of the process and experience in setting up a capital project plan. Truly understanding all of the pieces involved in the puzzle will ensure you launch a project correctly for a successful outcome. As things are rarely what they seem, clearly defining the truth behind your numbers will alleviate stress and avoid endless frustration.
Related Stories
| Nov 8, 2013
Oversized healthcare: How did we get here and how do we right-size?
Healthcare facilities, especially our nation's hospitals, have steadily become larger over the past couple of decades. The growth has occurred despite stabilization, and in some markets, a decline in inpatient utilization.
| Nov 8, 2013
Can Big Data help building owners slash op-ex budgets?
Real estate services giant Jones Lang LaSalle set out to answer these questions when it partnered with Pacific Controls to develop IntelliCommand, a 24/7 real-time remote monitoring and control service for its commercial real estate owner clients.
| Nov 8, 2013
S+T buildings embrace 'no excuses' approach to green labs
Some science-design experts once believed high levels of sustainability would be possible only for low-intensity labs in temperate zones. But recent projects prove otherwise.
| Nov 8, 2013
Net-zero bellwether demonstrates extreme green, multifamily style
The 10-unit zHome in Issaquah Highlands, Wash., is the nation’s first net-zero multifamily project, as certified this year by the International Living Future Institute.
| Nov 8, 2013
Walkable solar pavement debuts at George Washington University
George Washington University worked with supplier Onyx Solar to design and install 100 sf of walkable solar pavement at its Virginia Science and Technology Campus in Ashburn, Va.
| Nov 6, 2013
PECI tests New Buildings Institute’s plug load energy use metrics at HQ
Earlier this year, PECI used the NBI metrics to assess plug load energy use at PECI headquarters in downtown Portland, Ore. The study, which informed an energy-saving campaign, resulted in an 18 percent kWh reduction of PECI’s plug load.
| Nov 5, 2013
Net-zero movement gaining traction in U.S. schools market
As more net-zero energy schools come online, school officials are asking: Is NZE a more logical approach for school districts than holistic green buildings?
| Nov 5, 2013
New IECC provision tightens historic building exemption
The International Energy Conservation Code has been revised to eliminate what has been seen as a blanket exemption for historic buildings.
| Nov 5, 2013
Living Building Challenge clarifies net-zero definitions and standards
The Living Building Challenge has released the Net Zero Energy Building Certification to provide clearer definitions regarding what net zero really means and how it is to be achieved.
| Nov 5, 2013
Oakland University’s Human Health Building first LEED Platinum university building in Michigan [slideshow]
Built on the former site of a parking lot and an untended natural wetland, the 160,260-sf, five-story, terra cotta-clad building features some of the industry’s most innovative, energy-efficient building systems and advanced sustainable design features.
