Page 21 - College Planning & Management, February 2018

2018 FACILITIES & CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
SURVEY ON COLLEGE CONSTRUCTION
Did you COMPLETE any construction projects in 2017?
No construction completed in 2017 Major renovations/modernizations Additions to existing building(s) New/replacement building(s)
0%
23%
17%
27%
52%
10%
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Will you COMPLETE any construction projects in 2018?
No construction scheduled for completion Major renovations/modernizations Additions to existing building(s) New/replacement building(s)
0%
13%
23%
22%
20% 30% 40% 50%
61%
60% 70%
10%
Will you START any construction projects in 2018?
No construction scheduled to start Major renovations/modernizations Additions to existing building(s) New/replacement building(s)
0% 10%
27%
52%
15%
26%
20% 30% 40%
50% 60% 70%
What is your opinion on the funds available for construction compared to last year?
18% 14%
29%
Fewer funds are available 39% No change in available funds
More funds are becoming available Don’t know
Survey Respondents: 143 colleges and universities responded to this survey among 38 states.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Seventy-seven percent of institutions surveyed completed construction
in 2017.
• Seventy-three percent of institutions surveyed are planning to start construction projects in 2018.
• Major renovations and moderniza- tions of existing facilities will continue to be the focus.
• While only 18 percent of survey respondents feel that more funds for construction are becoming available, only 29 percent (a significant drop from last year’s 43 percent) feel that fewer funds are available.
OTHER ISSUES FACING INSTITUTIONS
• Adequate construction labor availability.
• Hiring enough staff to support the workload of deferred maintenance and construction services.
• Quality of construction from low bidders.
• We see an aging workforce and struggle to maintain a good workforce.
• Maintaining continuous operations during renovations.
• Preparing for future technology needs.
• Institutional commitment to certain growth trajectories. A reactionary vs. planned approach in strategic planning places us in a position of consistent
fast-tracking, which equates to risk and vulnerability in development.
• Bureaucratic hurdles for vendor selection, procurement, etc. Causes great delays that impact cost.
• Rules and regulations, zoning, permitting.
• Basically, just space for additional offices/classrooms and storage.
• P3 versus conventional funding decisions.
• Scheduling time for the project.
• Matching the existing construction materials in older buildings; i.e., new exterior elevator structure.
• Weather.
FEBRUARY 2018 / COLLEGE PLANNING & MANAGEMENT 21