Two tools are now helping Lawrence Livermore set clear priorities about which facilities should be considered for investments and upgrades. Through the use of the Facilities Assessment and Ranking System (FAaRS) and Maintenance Backlog Prioritization (MBP) processes, LLNL has pared 232,000 sf—spread among 103 facilities—from its total site square footage since 1996. Maintenance backlog alone has been reduced by more than $5.5 million (not counting year 2000 figures).

These evaluation mechanisms are fed with data from LLNL's decades-old Facility Information Tracking System (FITS) database and followed up by two more Lawrence Livermore litmus tests—a list of strategic investment options and a set of "ruthless realities." Only after these in-depth analyses does a potential facility renovation, demolition, or addition move forward.

"We have an additional 250,000 sf that's been taken out of service and is awaiting disposition such as demolition or reuse," according to Judy Houdeshell, who is in charge of space management at LLNL. "Most of the 103 demolished facilities have been trailers, which have a lifespan of 10 to 15 years maximum. Some here are pushing 30 years old. We sorely needed this program."

In the Beginning

Five years ago, Lawrence Livermore met with a maintenance budget crunch. According to Paul Chu, LLNL Deputy Manager for Space and Site Planning, a rough projection called for the elimination of at least 1.5 million sf of facilities.

"But whose 1.5 million?" Chu asks. "Everyone agreed that it was important to reduce the amount of excess and substandard space—as long as it wasn't theirs."

Compounding this dilemma was the swelling backlog of planned maintenance for the hundreds of facilities on site.

"We had to devise some kind of baseline to compare all these facilities," Chu says. That system came in the form of FAaRS, a method of ranking and scoring multiple building types against a dozen key criteria. These include flexibility of use, code compliance, technological obsolescence, and importance to the program. Criteria are ranked by the facility occupant and LLNL's plant engineering staff.

The other factors contributing to the FAaRS score are based on interpretations of data contained in Lawrence Livermore's FITS or inventory tracking system, including age, construction type, etc.

"That's where a user's opinion can be reconciled by facts," Chu says.

The FITS database houses a wealth of information on each building, including the program or business unit using it, what it's used for, the facility type (such as a trailer or a permanent building), age or date of construction, construction type (steel, wood frame, etc.), size in square feet, sf devoted to each function, workstation count, population count, the amount of money required to address the facility's maintenance backlog, and the facility's replacement value.

The FITS database is administered by two database management employees in Space and Site Planning, Chu says. Data is input by all departments in response to a periodic "call to update."

Passing Grade

"Anything with a FAaRS score higher than 21 is considered substandard space and should be evaluated," says Houdeshell. The highest score possible is 48, while the highest score for a campus facility thus far has been 36. (That building was shut down in 1999.)

Though facilities that score 21 and higher are often headed for demolition, another critical measurement must be taken before they advance in the process: whether it is essential to Lawrence Livermore's research mission.

"If these buildings are considered mission-essential, the flag goes up," Chu says. "The message we get is that this facility is important enough that we need to keep it. Then options to renovate it or replace it are evaluated, and an investment plan is prepared."

Addressing the facility's maintenance backlog is a critical factor in making maintenance investment decisions. LLNL employs a three-step maintenance backlog prioritization (MBP) evaluation process. With the exception of equipment directly tied to the mission for which the program group is responsible, each building system is evaluated separately.

The program group occupying the space determines risk to the mission in the event of a system failure. The maintenance and operations department ascertains the probability of failure in the absence of maintenance. The resulting score is then applied to a priority matrix containing all potential facility upgrades and their respective timelines for improvement.

"You break a building down?air conditioning, floor, lighting, etc.," says Chu. "Sometimes there's equipment or machinery directly tied to the mission. That's for the program to decide. Then maintenance and operations decides the probability of failure of this equipment or machinery. The merit of this assessment is that it is conducted in partnership; everyone owns it and everyone buys into it."

According to Chu, the FAaRS and MBP assessments must work together to identify which facilities should undergo improvement and when. Lawrence Livermore's closely watched budget demands it.

"We only have a limited amount of money every year," he says. "Where we spend it is very important. We can't blindly rely on either FAaRS or MBP; we use them as prime indicators. With maintenance prioritization, it's more of a day-to-day view of operations. With FAaRS, it's more long-range planning. But if FAaRS scores a facility as substandard yet mission-essential?and none of its maintenance backlog has been given a high priority?we have to find out what's wrong."

Strategic and Ruthless Wins the Race

Facilities with a high FAaRS score and priority in the MBP matrix still face two more examinations before finding their fate. The first, Lawrence Livermore's eight strategic options for facilities investment, brings the following alternatives into consideration: building renovation/rehabilitation; reuse; putting a new facility on a new site (green field); putting a new facility on an existing site with existing utility hookups (brown field); building a temporary facility; adaptive re-use of an existing building, e.g., conversion from laboratory to office; leasing a facility off-campus; and deferring action until later.

The second test, a list of "ruthless realities," helps LLNL weigh its proposed options against make-or-break factors, such as supply and demand of available space, money, time needed to complete a project and the risk involved, considerations of the research program occupying the facility, and current priority issues across the campus.

"Some strategic options drop off right away. For instance, if a project has high security requirements, then an off-site leased facility won't do at all," says Houdeshell. "Or, you know that if you have high-bay lab space needs, a temporary or trailer facility won't work. As for the ruthless realities, you've got to have an institutional perspective of your company and high-level management support."

Some facilities work commands instant high priority when attached to hot-button issues. For example, LLNL management is especially approving of projects with safety implications.

"If you can relate safety to a proposed upgrade or demolition, it'll get more consideration—and priority when the money comes in," says Houdeshell. "The problem could be mold and mildew in the trailers, which lead to Sick Building Syndrome, or it could be the general safety and condition of the trailers themselves."

Putting it All Together

A group of trailer complexes referred to as the "1400 block" provides an example of the lab's evaluation system in action. Currently undergoing rehabilitation, the facilities are in a classified area and are vital to the research program. Lawrence Livermore's exhaustive evaluation tools showed that the space was ripe for action.

"The FAaRS score for all of these trailers was high, as was the maintenance backlog," Houdeshell says. "For several years, we believed we could relocate these people and then demolish all of these old trailers, so we did not prioritize working down the backlog or provide any real investment to these units. When other existing space finally did become available, the reality was that we could not afford to lose 50,000 sf of office space in that location.

"We had a minimal supply of classified space and high demand, so we put together a renovation plan and started a pilot project on one trailer complex first to see what costs were involved," Houdeshell continues. "As for time and risk involved, if we didn't start doing something, the condition of the block was going to get much worse. One or two more rainy seasons, and we could not have done anything to salvage the situation."

LLNL has just completed its second year of rehabilitation of eight trailer facilities—about 5,000 sf each?in the 1400 block at a cost of about $40/sf. Air conditioning units, windows, and carpets were replaced. Roofs were repaired, and trailers were painted inside and out. The refurbishing has extended the usable lives of the trailers by eight to ten years, according to Houdeshell. The project still has half a year to go, with two other 10,000-sf trailer complexes likely headed for demolition due to extensive dry rot.

Though Lawrence Livermore puts its facilities through an exacting reinvestment evaluation, both Chu and Houdeshell still encounter difficulties. Because long-range funding cannot be assured, facilities projects tend to be reactionary, or a form of "crisis management," as Chu puts it.

LLNL historically solved space shortages with trailers because they met program needs quickly and because it was hard for the lab to get enough capital funding to build permanent structures. But this has resulted in shorter facility life spans and a lot more juggling of facility repair and renovation projects.

"They keep needing work, keep getting older," Chu says. "It's like walking up the 'down' escalator."

Rating the Process

In late 2000, Houdeshell compiled LLNL's annual list of facilities to be demolished. This time, it included 13 trailers and one building, together totaling 29,000 sf.

"I feel very confident that we have taken down the right buildings under this program," Houdeshell says. "Through astute migration planning, you can really work with a lot of options to target the right facilities to be demolished and relocate the occupants to better and more permanent space. By starting with the high FAaRS score facilities and then assessing the ruthless realities involved, you have justification for the options you choose. You have an auditable decision-making process that you can use from one project to the next."

As for the recommendation of Lawrence Livermore's maintenance and operations department that the campus shed 1.5 million sf, that goal appears to be out of reach in the short term.

"We've taken the low-hanging fruit so far," says Chu. "Now we're making the tougher calls, where the space we have to move people into might not be the right size or in the right location."

By Jason Mihos