Major Project Requests

major project REQUEST requirements

The need for academic facility improvements at UW System institutions far exceeds the amount of available state support each biennium, therefore, the UW System and the Board of Regents must prioritize the major capital projects requested by system institutions.  The Board updated those criteria in February 2019 to reflect current systemwide initiatives, priorities, and goals as they are used to evaluate how major projects would address the greatest needs, highest academic priorities, and most cost-effective solutions to established facility deficiencies.

Each major project will be evaluated based on the approved criteria and prioritized according to its score.  The evaluation categories were established by determining distinguishing factors of project requests.  Since major project requests are jointly developed by the institution and UW System Administration, all requests will support the institution's mission and academic goals.  Significant evaluation factors include a strong emphasis on facility reuse, innovation, and the impact on infrastructure and maintenance.  Preference is given to projects that improve space utilization, reduce maintenance costs, promote facility reuse, and improve program functionality.

As part of the President's Reform Agenda, which reinforces the existing Regent policy of emphasizing the importance of considering renovation before the construction of new space, an additional prerequisite process is now included to evaluate those requests that propose new net square footage.  Four categories have been created to evaluate the need for new space:  Facility Standards and Compliance, Academic Program and Enrollment Growth, Revenue-Based Initiatives, and Effective Use of Capital and Operating Resources.   Each proposal that requests new space must meet the criteria delineated in one of these categories as well as demonstrate that no other appropriate facilities are available to accommodate expansion before it can continue to move through the remaining steps of the evaluation process.

Evaluation Criteria for Major Capital Project Requests

Adopted by Board of Regents Resolution 11175 on 2/8/2019.

Net New Square Footage Prerequisite

PART I:  These evaluation criteria apply to all requests for new assignable* square footage, regardless of funding source(s). Project requests seeking to add additional assignable square footage must meet at least one of the following four criteria to advance further for capital budget consideration.  If the net new square footage ‡ prerequisite is satisfied, then the project request will continue through the remaining evaluation criteria and process.  Each institution must provide demonstrated proof that no other appropriate facilities are available to accommodate the proposed expansion needs.

*Assignable square footage does not include any circulation; restrooms; mechanical or electrical rooms; structural areas; or building service areas.
‡ Net new square footage does not include replace-in-kind, even if the replacement space is larger than the original space due to current construction and facility standards and practices.  This only applies to new square footage purely for program creation or expansion purposes.

Scoring
Criteria Description
Yes or NoFACILITY STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE:  The institution has demonstrated and documented building codes and/or standards compliance issues and/or health, safety, and environmental issues that would not be resolved through standard design and operating practice. The project scope must include extraordinary or non-routine conditions and examples to be resolved, as documented by a planning study such as: Campus Master Plan or Precinct/College Plan, Facility Condition Assessment, Pre-Design, or Feasibility Study.
Yes or NoACADEMIC PROGRAM AND ENROLLMENT GROWTH:  The institution has identified demonstrated space shortages related to Board of Regents-approved academic program creation or expansion with the following: 5-year enrollment trends responding to strategic or programmatic needs and a targeted space utilization analysis showing use consistently beyond UWSA standards, and/or evidence that enrollment exceeds original building design capacity. The project documentation must be accompanied by market studies as appropriate and operational impact reports, historical enrollment data, and sound financial plans.
Yes or NoREVENUE-BASED INITIATIVES:  The institution has identified and demonstrated space shortages related to the need of additional residence hall beds, dining capacity, parking, or other student-supported and engagement space, and/or community-based initiatives.  Project documentation must include market studies as appropriate and financial analysis, debt service payment schedules, and/or sound business plans.
Yes or NoEFFECTIVE USE OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING RESOURCES:  The institution has identified and demonstrated that the existing facilities are insufficient, dysfunctional, and no longer cost effective to operate and maintain. The project documentation provides a Building Condition Assessment demonstrating poor adaptive reuse potential for its intended purpose and a cost to upgrade, renovate, and repair that exceeds 75% of replacement cost.

PART II:  These evaluation criteria apply to all Major Project requests, regardless of funding source(s). The categories and criteria were established by determining distinguishing factors of project requests. Some criteria are entirely objective; either the project request meets the criteria definitions or it doesn't. Other criteria are subjective; the criteria definitions are partially met or the degree to which they are met is open to interpretation. Only those projects ranked each biennium will be used to gauge the range of possible points given for the subjective criteria; there are no absolute standards for maximum points awarded. Subjective points will be an assigned consensus value by the group of evaluators. If all the capital project prerequisites are satisfied, then the project request will continue through the remaining evaluation process.

Capital Project Prerequisites

Scoring
Criteria Description
Yes or NoNET NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE:  If the proposed project includes new assignable square footage, the institution has met the net new square footage prerequisite.
Yes or NoEVIDENCE OF PLANNING:  The institution has demonstrated and documented previous indication(s) and intent(s) for the majority of project scope through one or more of the following items: Campus Master or Capital Plan,  Facility Condition Assessment, Feasibility Study, Project Priority and Sequence Chart, Pre-Design, Space Use Study.
Yes or NoINSTITUTIONAL READINESS:  The institution has demonstrated and documented its ability and capacity to execute and manage the proposed project within the context of the proposed six-year institutional capital plan and in or by the proposed biennium through the following items: (a) a fully documented and submitted six-year institutional capital plan; (b) surge space identified and reallocated or reserved as necessary; and (c) appropriate and adequate operational resources identified and documented to operate and maintain the resulting capital asset(s).
Yes or NoINFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT:  The institution has identified and requested, if necessary, the required additional site infrastructure/utility funding commitments and/or those have been included in the Capital Plan in the biennium prior to, and/or in the same biennium as the project.

PART III:  These evaluation criteria reflect the institution's highest priority for the current biennial capital planning cycle and recognize those requests from the previous biennial planning cycle that were included in the Board of Regents capital budget request, but remain unfunded.

CAPITAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS

Scoring
Criteria Description
0 or 10 pointsINSTITUTIONAL PRIORITY: The institution has identified and documented the project as the institution's highest priority Major Capital Project Request for the proposed six-year institutional capital plan.
0 or 10 pointsCAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST DEFERRAL: The identified project was included in the previous BOR approved biennial capital budget request to the State of Wisconsin Department of Administration, but was subsequently not funded in the State of Wisconsin's biennial budget.

PART IV:  These evaluation criteria define the significant and measurable areas of physical development and programmatic impacts for each requested Major Capital Project Request, and serve as the means by which to prioritize all proposed inclusions of the Board of Regents Six-Year Capital Plan. Each criterion defined below provides the opportunity to articulate (a) the advantage(s), benefit(s), and positive impact(s) that will result if the proposed project is funded in the requested biennium and (b) the consequence(s), hardship(s), and negative impact(s) that will result if the proposed project is not funded in the requested biennium.

Physical development IMPACTS

Scoring
Criteria Description
0 - 10 points

CODES, STANDARDS, HEALTH & SAFETY:  How the existing vs. proposed facility status relates to and addresses, improves, and/or resolves demonstrated and documented...

  • Building code citations, conflicts, and/or retroactive enforcements.
  • Physical development and/or environment standards of program space.
  • Health, safety, or protection of the physical and natural environment.
0 - 10 points
CAPITAL MAINTENANCE ELIMINATION or DEFERRAL:  Formula calculation and the ratio of demolished/razed space vs. new/replacement construction of the same or equivalent space type(s) and funding source(s). This criteria scores the quantity ratio and percentage of demolished/razed space vs. new/replacement space for the entire request.
 
  • Up to full credit for demolishing/razing more square footage than new/replacement space.
  • Partial credit for demolishing/razing equal or less square footage than new/replacement space.
  • No credit for scope of work that includes only new/replacement space.
0 - 10 points
CAPITAL RENEWAL:  Formula calculation and the ratio of the budget estimate dedicated to renovation vs. new/replacement space. This criteria scores the degree ($/GSF) and percentage of proposed total project budget that is dedicated to renovation.
 
  • Full credit for 100% of the budget estimate that is dedicated to renovation. No new/replacement construction of program space.
  • Partial credit for budget estimates that include both renovation and new/replacement program space.
  • No credit for budget estimates that includes only new/replacement program space.
0 - 10 points
FACILITY REUSE:  Formula calculation and the ratio of project space that is dedicated to renovation vs. new/replacement space. This criteria scores the quantity ratio and percentage of proposed total project space that is dedicated to renovation.
 
  • Full credit for 100% of the scope of work that is dedicated to renovation. No new/replacement construction of program space.
  • Partial credit for scope of work that includes both renovation and new/replacement construction of program space.
  • No credit for scope of work that includes only new/replacement construction of program space.

programMATIC IMPACTS

Scoring
Criteria Description
0 - 10 points
OPERATIONS and OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT:  How the existing vs. proposed program space status relates to and addresses, improves, and/or resolves through consolidation, reorganization, and/or relocation...
 
  • Operational efficiency, staffing requirements, and/or program accreditation(s) and/or certification(s).
  • Operating budget estimates and analysis, plans, projections, savings, and reallocations.
  • Recruitment, retention, and training of faculty, staff, and students.
0 - 10 points
SPACE QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, and SUITABILITY:  How the existing vs. proposed program space status relates to and addresses, improves, and/or resolves the overall quality, performance, and suitability of the program space through demonstrated and documented functional and technological requirements, spacial configurations, and/or adjacency of space...
 
  • Where quality is defined as the condition, fit and finish, and equipment/technology level for its intended purpose(s) and program(s).
  • Where performance is defined as how the space functions for its intended purpose(s) and programs(s).
  • Where suitability is defined as how appropriate the space is for its intended purpose(s) and program(s).
 
...and impacts the institution's mission, student graduation rate, and intended program delivery and development needs.
0 - 10 points
SPACE QUANTITY, AVAILABILITY, and CAPACITY:  How the existing vs. proposed program space status relates to and addresses, improves, and/or resolves the overall quantity, availability, and or capacity of space through demonstrated and documented program and data analysis...
 
  • Where quantity is defined as the number of program spaces for the intended purpose(s), regardless of size or availability of spaces.
  • Where availability is defined as adequate time periods to schedule instruction, regardless of number or size of spaces.
  • Where capacity is defined as the desired or optimal occupancy and/or student station count for scheduled instruction, regardless of number or availability of spaces.
 
...and impacts the institution's mission, student graduation rate, and intended program delivery and development needs.
0 – 10 points
SPACE UTILIZATION:  How the existing vs. proposed program space status relates to and addresses, improves, and/or resolves the overall use of space for scheduled instruction through demonstrated and documented program and data analysis, including...
 
  • Surplus, surge, and/or underutilized space.
  • Overprescribed space and utilization rates above space type standards and requirements.
  • Projected space use for new program space that does not already exist.
 
...and impacts the institution's mission, student graduation rate, and intended program delivery and development needs.