E-8 Preventative Maintenance - Arlingtonva
Subject: DES Preventative Maintenance
FY 2015 Proposed Budget Budget Work Session Follow-up April 11, 2014 The following information is provided in response to questions raised by Ms. Garvey on March 20, 2014, regarding the reason for the drop in in-house scheduled preventative maintenance (PM) completed from Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 to FY 2012. The work orders procedures and tracking methodology changed beginning in FY 2012, with the conversion to the new methodology completed during FY 2013. The goal of changing measurement methods was to more accurately indicate and measure performance. A direct comparison to prior years is not possible; the data should not have been included for years prior to FY 2012 for in-house work orders and will be removed in next year’s budget document. The measure had previously tracked inhouse preventative maintenance work orders created by area or type. For example, one work order was created for all sinks in a building; if there were twenty sinks then they were all included on one work order. In FY 2012 and forward, the work orders are created by individual item or space. To use the example above, one work order is now issued for each individual sink; there would be twenty work orders issued instead of one. The types of preventative maintenance performed by in-house staff is of a non-critical nature; outages on these items would not cause building closures. Examples of inhouse preventative maintenance includes systems such as toilets, sinks, drinking fountains, and lighting. Preventative maintenance on critical systems is performed by contract; critical systems are those that could potentially cause building closures and include things like HVAC, life safety systems, sprinklers, fire alarms, and back-up generators. The completion rate for contractual PM on critical systems is approximately 90%. The high percentage of in-house PM work orders not completed was due to a number of factors. During this period of time the Department of Environmental Services was experiencing an unusually high turnover and vacancy rate for the staff positions that provided this service. The competition for skilled and licensed labor in this geographic area is high due to the large concentration of high rise buildings and higher paying union jobs. In addition, there were several new or expanded facilities for this work group to monitor and provide service. Existing staff prioritized corrective work orders which led to higher number of preventative maintenance on non-critical items to be delayed. In-House Work Orders Number of in-house corrective maintenance work orders Number of in-house corrective maintenance work orders completed Percent corrective maintenance work orders completed Number of in-house scheduled PM work orders Number of in-house scheduled PM work orders completed
FY 2012 5,990 5,909 99% 15,603 2,363
FY2013 5,294 5,040 95% 21,810 6,266
L:\DMFBUD\Bud15\Worksessions\Follow up which has gone to the Board\E-8 DES Preventative Maintenance (RS-2).docx
E-8
FY 2015 Proposed Budget Budget Work Session Follow-up April 11, 2014 The following information is provided in response to questions raised by Ms. Garvey on March 20, 2014, regarding the reason for the drop in in-house scheduled preventative maintenance (PM) completed from Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 to FY 2012. The work orders procedures and tracking methodology changed beginning in FY 2012, with the conversion to the new methodology completed during FY 2013. The goal of changing measurement methods was to more accurately indicate and measure performance. A direct comparison to prior years is not possible; the data should not have been included for years prior to FY 2012 for in-house work orders and will be removed in next year’s budget document. The measure had previously tracked inhouse preventative maintenance work orders created by area or type. For example, one work order was created for all sinks in a building; if there were twenty sinks then they were all included on one work order. In FY 2012 and forward, the work orders are created by individual item or space. To use the example above, one work order is now issued for each individual sink; there would be twenty work orders issued instead of one. The types of preventative maintenance performed by in-house staff is of a non-critical nature; outages on these items would not cause building closures. Examples of inhouse preventative maintenance includes systems such as toilets, sinks, drinking fountains, and lighting. Preventative maintenance on critical systems is performed by contract; critical systems are those that could potentially cause building closures and include things like HVAC, life safety systems, sprinklers, fire alarms, and back-up generators. The completion rate for contractual PM on critical systems is approximately 90%. The high percentage of in-house PM work orders not completed was due to a number of factors. During this period of time the Department of Environmental Services was experiencing an unusually high turnover and vacancy rate for the staff positions that provided this service. The competition for skilled and licensed labor in this geographic area is high due to the large concentration of high rise buildings and higher paying union jobs. In addition, there were several new or expanded facilities for this work group to monitor and provide service. Existing staff prioritized corrective work orders which led to higher number of preventative maintenance on non-critical items to be delayed. In-House Work Orders Number of in-house corrective maintenance work orders Number of in-house corrective maintenance work orders completed Percent corrective maintenance work orders completed Number of in-house scheduled PM work orders Number of in-house scheduled PM work orders completed
FY 2012 5,990 5,909 99% 15,603 2,363
FY2013 5,294 5,040 95% 21,810 6,266
L:\DMFBUD\Bud15\Worksessions\Follow up which has gone to the Board\E-8 DES Preventative Maintenance (RS-2).docx
E-8
