Please contact us for an updated list of client references.

• Church World Service
• Clear Channel (SFX Entertainment)
• Columbia University
• Dormitory Authority - State of New York
• Hearst Magazines
• Hoffmann-La Roche
• Investcorp International
• McKesson Corporation
• New York City Department of Corrections
• Nonprofit Finance Fund
• Port Authority of NY & NJ
• Scholastic Magazine
• The Brooklyn Historical Society
• The Haverford School
• United Nations
• U.S. Navy
• Volunteers of America - Greater New York
  

• Dormitory Authority – State of New York
• Hoffmann-La Roche
• Investcorp International Inc.
• Sterling Drug, Inc.
• US Navy

Facility Management world Wide Ltd. (FMWW) was asked by the Dormitory Authority – State of New York (DASNY) to perform a survey of all building infrastructure equipment and systems in three veterans’ homes in New York State and to determine all Y2K sensitive equipment and systems for further investigation. For this project FMWW teamed up with Facilities Management Engineering, (FME), and the MS/ATMS Group LLC, a high tech company, in order to provide all the specialty services required by this assignment. FMWW was the project manager and coordinated the efforts of all the consultants working under the umbrella of MS/ATMS.

We reviewed existing equipment surveys and interviewed staff members in materials management, information services, plant engineering, and medical technology regarding building infrastructure systems and equipment. We toured each facility, surveyed building systems and equipment, and inventoried each system and/or piece of equipment with an identifying bar code tag. Information gathered included location, type, service/function, department and/or areas served, vendor, manufacturer, model, serial number, etc. for all devices, building related computer systems and building systems. We entered all information in an inventory control database system that was delivered to DASNY.

Infrastructure equipment surveyed included:

1. Fire Alarm / Fire Protection Systems
   
2. Back up Lighting and Generators
   
3. Heating & Ventilating Systems, Thermostats
   
4. Nurses Call Systems
   
5. Security / Card Access Systems / Door Locks
   
6. Security Cameras
   
7. Safes & Vaults
   
8. Telephone / Communication Systems
   
9. Public Address Systems
   
10. Building Automation Systems & Other Controls
    
11. Computerized Maintenance Management Systems
    
12. Materials / Stockroom Management Systems
    
13. Specialized equipment controls: e.g. boilers, gas pumps, generators, etc.
    
14. Elevators, Escalators & Lifts
    
15. Food Service and Refrigeration
    
16. Vending Systems
    
17. Parking Systems
    
18. Electrical Systems and Controls

Hoffmann-La Roche Case History
Dr. Leon Lewis
340 Kingsland Street
Nutley, NJ 17110
Tel: 973-235-8874

Facility Management World Wide Ltd. (FMWW) and Facilities Management Engineering (FME) combined forces to develop a master maintenance plan for a newly constructed $93 million laboratory facility. The motivation for the planning and development of this facility was the functional and technical obsolescence of other facilities on campus. That obsolescence was perceived to ultimately have created impediments to the functioning of the research staff.

Our project goal was to outline a management strategy to maintain this new laboratory building as a state-of-the-art facility for the foreseeable future. This strategic plan included not only preventive and predictive maintenance of the current equipment and systems, but also a plan for future overhauling, upgrading and modernizing of the systems and equipment to offset the effects of normal wear and tear and technological obsolescence.

FMWW and FME interviewed department heads and the maintenance and engineering staff, reviewed the design plans, current maintenance schedules, budget, and preventive maintenance plan, analyzed the activities, and prepared a detailed report for management.

Areas of study included:

• Facilities maintenance
  
• Building services
  
• Housekeeping
  
• Yard services
  
• Utilities
  
• Energy management
  
• HVAC systems
  
• Electrical systems
  
• Laundry

FMWW performed an operations review and analysis for this high profile, investment bank in a prestigious high-rise office building in New York City. The facility manager was perceived as inefficient but overpaid and no one knew what he did or whether or not it was critical to company operations. The office services functions had been outsourced, which the facility manager resented, and the vendor was not providing a quality service nor living up to its contract agreements. The facility manager was responsible for telecommunications but the company was considering transferring the function to the IT department.

Functions analyzed were:

• Facility Management
  
• Housekeeping
  
• Security
  
• Telecommunications
  
• Mail room / messenger / central fax / copy center
  
• Food Service
  
• Records Management
  
• Reception

A policies and procedures manual was developed that could be expanded as the various data bases were augmented. A master vendor list was initiated and a purchasing / contracting system developed to organize vendor records, track approved expenditures, track invoices, standardize contracts and control and document costs. A series of management reports were created to assist the facility manager with maintenance operations and capital budget projections.

In addition, FMWW wrote a job description for the facility manager, established an appropriate salary level and performed a successful search for the new facility manager.

Sterling Drug, Inc. Case History

Facility Management World Wide Ltd (FMWW) was asked by Sterling Drug Inc. to perform an operations analysis and review of several facilities and administration departments managing its 450,000 square foot headquarters building on Park Avenue in New York City. The departments studied included:

• Building Services – Operations, Maintenance, & Housekeeping
  
• Lighting Maintenance
  
• Receiving & Storage
  
• Mail / Messenger Center
  
• Photocopying & Finishing
  
• Printing, Stationery & Forms
  
• Publications Storage & Fulfillment
  
• Office Supplies
  
• Records Retention / Micrographics

It was felt that certain departments should remain in-house operations while four of the departments should be outsourced for greater economies. A 15% across the board savings was achieved, while at the same time improving the quality of the services. The benefits of standardizing policies and procedures, combined with outsourcing various facilities and administration tasks, can be seen because a savings of almost $1 million was realized initially and that savings was continued every year into the future.

In 2002 Carol E. Farren, CMC, CFM, IFMA Fellow was asked to be on a special 13 person expert panel by the U.S. Navy to review and analyze how its $200 billion worth of facilities were being operated and maintained. This 6-month study developed recommendations for cost savings, improving maintenance quality, and improving operations efficiency and effectiveness. The final report, entitled “Enhancing Naval Readiness through Effective Facilities Management,” was presented to the Acting Secretary of the Navy, H. T. Johnson, on February 7, 2003 at the Pentagon in Washington, DC.

The vision of the panel was to provide “Facilities that fully meet the warfighter’s readiness requirements at the lowest life cycle cost. Nothing Extra . . . Nothing Missing.” The Department of the Navy’s shore installations exist to support the readiness of Naval operating forces. Shore facilities include buildings, piers, runways, utilities, and ranges. They should perform without interruption or distraction and be fully capable for their intended purpose. The effective and efficient management of shore facilities is essential to ensuring that the Sailors, Marines, and civilian workforce work in a safe and professional environment that enhances warfighter readiness.

The Secretary of the Navy chartered the Facilities Management (FM) Panel, comprised of Naval and private industry experts in facilities management, to insure that Naval leadership has the necessary policies, processes, resources, and accountability to consistently make the best decisions for investing limited dollars in shore facilities. The Navy Department’s 2002 Facilities Investment Plan that listed 67% of Naval and Marine Corps facilities in fair to poor condition, which indicates serious facilities readiness degradation, precipitated the study.

The Navy and Marine Corps collectively operate 119 installations worldwide, which encompass nearly 100,000 buildings with an area of over 712 million square feet and a land area of almost 4 million acres. The Panel made representative site visits to large ship bases at Norfolk, VA and San Diego, CA, to a submarine base at Kings Bay, GA, and a Marine training base at Quantico, VA and interviewed various levels of local and regional facility managers as well as outsourced service providers, Installation Commanders, warfighters, comptrollers, and IT specialists. Current, historical, and projected facilities management data was reviewed and analyzed to assess the current state of facility management and develop recommendations for improvement.

Findings included the fact that facilities planning and weapons systems planning are not linked, resulting in facilities shortfalls which impact fleet introductions of new platforms and systems. Also, the sporadic funding and migration of funds out of facility operations budgets, for emergencies and other unplanned projects, result in 35-40% of the Navy’s maintenance budget not being spent as planned.

Recommendations in seven focus areas were developed and presented: Facilities Management Organization, Vision, Strategy, and Linkage; Leadership Selection and Development Principles; Processes, Methods, Operations; Financial Strategies; Support Systems; Execution; and Feedback of Performance.

The recurring themes that impact all focus areas are:

• The Navy must centralize and establish a single authority, Commander, Navy Installation Command (CNIC) responsible for all aspects of Shore Installation Management.
  
• The Navy must acknowledge the total life cycle cost of facilities ownership and stabilize the facilities maintenance investment.
  
• The Navy and Marine Corps must adopt an enterprise facilities management system for planning, programming, budgeting, execution, and feedback.

At the conclusion of the presentation the Acting Secretary of the Navy advised the Panel that he concurred with our findings and instructed the Admiral in charge of the Panel to develop a phased implementation plan for his review and approval within a month.