MASTER PLAN UPDATE REVIEW FORM - Finance

Office Of The Chancellor

Description

MASTER PLAN UPDATE REVIEW FORM - Finance

Informations

• Publié par: ejymyram
• Nombre de lectures: 50
• Langue: Français

Extrait

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities

DRAFT 12-28-09

PREDESIGN REVIEW FOR NON-ACADEMIC Facilities

(including Revenue Fund Projects)

Institution:

Review Status :

% Review

Project Name:

Consultant:

Reviewed by:

Sally Grans-Korsh

651-296-7083

[e-mail]

Date Received:

Date Reviewed:

1.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

•

Summarize the basic data: the scope, cost and schedule that details the program delivery of the

what, where, who, how, why and when that also includes evaluation of alternative solutions for the

scope, cost and schedule.

•

Brief description of proposed program

•

that describe scope of work, operational programs affected,

project size in gross square footage, and major components of the work.

Highlight major facilities issues impacted

•

(deferred maintenance or renewal issues, space utilization

improvement, sustainability, B-3 guidelines adherence, renewable energy and FCI addressed in the

project scope)

Construction cost and Project Cost breakdown

•

relating to demolition, new construction, renovation and

renewal.

Funding breakdown:

•

briefly note Business Plan and ability to fund project.

Include average cost per

FYE or other structure of payment.

Project schedule

•

including milestone dates and funding sources for the project.

Include brief summary of the alternative or options evaluated



There are many potential solutions to any given problem; the most appropriate solution may vary

depending on priorities, schedule or timing, and amount of available funds.

Predesign should present

a series of potential options for delivering the academic program.

Intention of the predesign is to

examine alternatives to delivering the scope in a variety of potential different scope and cost

alternatives.

:



Note letters from the student consultation process, president and consultant (with appropriate

registration numbers) to be included in the final 90% review.

Consultant:

Synthesize

document

Campus:

Provide,

data, assist,

note

consultation,

business plan,

review and approve

document

Reviewer’s Comments:

2.

PROJECT BACKGROUND NARRATIVE - SCOPE

•

Summary of the project scope based on the following:

•

Provide brief statement relating to the project process

•

, planning process, student consultation,

participants and significant outcomes during the process, operational programs, relationship to deferred

maintenance and upcoming renewal needs, strategic plan, course schedule related to the project, learning

or workforce and economic vitality.

Facilities Master Plan

•

– note the graphic relationship between this project and Master Plan.

If proposed

scope and project varies significantly from Master Plan then additional information may be required.

Include supporting data

•

, analysis or studies which support the proposed program and need; summary of

surveys, market data, enrollment, workforce, regional issues, etc.

Facilities systems summary

•

; include deferred maintenance backlog, FCI (Facilities Condition Index) of

campus and affected buildings.

FCI = deferred maintenance/current replacement value, and future

renewal needs data obtained from the FRRM, Facilities Reinvestment Renewal Model.

Space utilization analysis

•

; based on current and proposed conditions, include any pertinent data sheets.

Sustainability highlights

•

; note sustainable concepts and specifics or potential impact the campus is

engaged that may impact this program or project.

Include alternatives or options

•

that have been evaluated for this program delivery.

List any alternative

program delivery, site, leasing or building options that been studied or explored.

Include photos

of proposed renovation area or potential new area location.

Consultant:

Gather

information,

analysis, synthesis,

review document

Campus:

Provide

documentation,

business plan

analysis,

review

document

Reviewer’s Comments: