Oct. 2025 Summary Report
1. Background
UC Santa Cruz’s Physical Planning, Development & Operations (PPDO) unit manages more than $1 billion in active capital projects alongside responsibilities for campus planning, maintenance, and operations. An external review, commissioned by Chancellor Cindy Larive, sought to provide an independent evaluation of PPDO’s organizational structure, staffing, processes, and outcomes, and to recommend improvements. The review committee was asked to primarily focus on recommendations for the Planning, Design and Construction units in PPDO. The goal of the review was to develop implementable recommendations that will materially improve campus facility planning and project delivery.
The review included an examination of PPDO’s organizational structure; planning, design, and construction policies, standards, processes, and procedures; contracting; resourcing (in-house and external staffing); its current project portfolio; and relevant performance data.
Ultimately, the scope of the review was kept at a high level with the goals to:
- Assess the organizational structure, staffing, and workload of PPDO;
- Evaluate project delivery processes, from intake through closeout;
- Examine communication and relationships with campus clients;
- Analyze the recharge model and its impact on incentives and client service;
- Identify strengths, challenges, and opportunities for improvement; and
- Informally compare UCSC to peer UC campuses and industry practices.
While UCSC shares common programmatic challenges with other UC campuses—such as construction cost premiums due to prevailing wage requirements, constraining public contracting rules, a large unfunded deferred maintenance backlog, and the ambition to achieve world-class sustainability goals—many of the problems identified at UCSC are internal and correctable.
The review team’s recommendations emphasize the need to be responsive to client perceptions, clarify accountability, modernize project intake and contracting, and build a culture of urgency and customer service.
2. Review Process
The review team included: Gerry Bomotti, Vice Chancellor (retired), UC Riverside; David Phillips, Associate Vice President – Capital Programs, Energy & Sustainability, UC Office of the President; and Brian Pratt, AIA, DBIA, LEED AP, Associate Vice Chancellor and Campus Architect, UC Irvine.
In advance of the site visit, the review team received more than thirty documents provided by PPDO, including organizational charts, workload spreadsheets, project lists, recharge packages, BAS standards, and deferred maintenance data.
During a two-day site visit on August 27–28, 2025, reviewers toured the campus and
active construction sites making observations of campus facilities and project
conditions. Additional interviews were conducted via Zoom during the week of
September 15.
The team met with the following staff and stakeholders:
- Campus executive leadership, including the Chancellor, Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor, Vice Chancellor for Research; Director of Athletics, and the Vice Chancellor & Chief Financial Officer, Finance, Operations & Administration.
- PPDO staff, including the AVC; directors of Business Services, Building Utility and Fleet Services, Design & Construction, Planning, and Work Management.
- Stakeholders within Athletics, Basking School of Engineering, Colleges Housing & Educational Services (CHES), Physical and Biological Sciences, Social Sciences, Student Affairs, and Real Estate.
- Project management staff from Design and Construction; Work Management; the Campus Inspector; and several contract project managers from Bogard.
3. Organizational Assessment
The review team assessed UCSC’s current project delivery structures:
- Work Management: Is primarily responsible for deferred maintenance and other smaller projects. The team has limited capacity, but existing SOPs, training, and monthly touch-base reviews seem to be effective.
- Design & Construction Services (DCS): Responsible for large capital projects. The unit includes both licensed staff and contract PMs; SOPs, training, and communication procedures were referenced as areas for improvement.
- Divisional Facilities: Many divisions (PBSci, BSOE, CHES) maintain in-house staff and sometimes perform work outside PPDO channels. Additionally, Real Estate can execute business contracts to perform some work that would otherwise be executed through PPDO.
These structures are relatively common within UC and other universities.
4. Summary of Recommendations
This review was performed at a relatively high level, over the course of a few days, and the findings and recommendations were strongly influenced by the personal preferences and experiences of the reviewers. Many approaches can be successful, and it is critical for campus leadership to make its own informed decisions based on their broader perspective and detailed understanding of current conditions at UC Santa Cruz. The recommendations below should be evaluated in this context.
Staffing Levels: No critical staffing shortages were observed, though the distribution of staff among units should be continuously reviewed based on evolving needs and capabilities.
Hybrid Schedules: The campus should review the current use of hybrid schedules in the PPDO area, especially for project managers and customer-facing staff.
Recharge Model: To be responsive, PPDO should consider dropping their top client-facing leaders from the recharge program. As an immediate solution, allow key positions (e.g., Campus Architect) to respond to campus clients without first seeking a recharge account.
Rate-Setting: Changing the campus recharge model will likely affect billing rates. The campus should evaluate the current direct costing committee structure and their responsibilities. Many campuses include leadership from the Controller, Budget Office, and the CFO in the annual rate reviews for the campus.
Risk Assessments: Overall, it appears PPDO is overly risk averse. Each project should have some evaluation to balance risk against campus needs and benefits. If, for example, the risk is deemed low on a smaller project, project delivery should be flexible and allow work to proceed in some appropriate way. There should be clear lines of authority and responsibility understood for who can make such decisions and how they should be documented. Under the current PPDO org structure, AVC seems best-positioned to make these risk-based decisions, with CFO consultation as needed.
Project Prioritization: The campus should conduct a comprehensive review of all existing projects (funded and unfunded) with the goal to triage the list and prioritize them in line with campus strategic goals. All planning projects should be carefully evaluated to confirm that the work may have a good return on investment. Ultimately, campus leadership, including the Chancellor, should set project completion priorities.
Communications: PPDO’s AVC and the CFO should expand regular in-person conversations with the Deans and other relevant high-level administrators. PPDO should establish communication channels to reinforce working partnerships with unit implementation leads.
Project Initiation Process: PPDO should consider modifying the project initiation process to create an easier first step, without a request for funding. An initial Zoom meeting might still be an effective first touch point with the clients, but PPDO should evaluate moving to on-site, in-person meeting as the first step in the project feasibility analysis.
Project Process Improvements: Project implementation steps and timelines after the initial Start-a-Project meeting are unclear and are ripe for process improvement. PPDO should further review the project delivery process to align with changes in the recharge structure, decision-making, accountability, and risk management.
Contracting Constraints: In response to campus feedback, UCOP will take the lead to firmly advocate for legislative changes this year to expand campus project implementation methods. Specifically, the goals are to expand the current limitations of $25k for self-performed painting; $50k for self-performed construction; and the $100k threshold for quickly contracting with consultants and design professionals. In the meanwhile, campus staff are encouraged to work with UCOP to address all existing constraints outlined in the Facilities Manual.
Design Standards: The campus should initiate a thorough review to update their existing design and construction standards. Campus standards can drive overall project costs up and campus leadership should decide which requirements are in the best interests of the campus and why.
Sustainability: A commitment to environmental and social sustainability goals came through during this review as a top-level priority for the campus. Implementation should be phased and prioritized in line with available funding and in alignment with other campus strategic goals.
Project Tracking and Problem-Solving: When challenges arise (awaiting decisions; contracts issues, contractor disputes, staffing availability; etc.) the AVC-PPDO should take corrective actions. Through regular focused reviews and interventions, the goal is to avoid project-related “surprises.”
5. Conclusion
A willingness to implement process improvements in support of campus goals was observed at all levels of the organization. This approach will be essential to transition PPDO into a top-performing customer-focused service organization.