Facility condition assessment software that keeps every building's condition current from work orders, and ranks the capital plan with its proof
Capital dollars go to the riskiest systems first, and every rank shows its proof.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Facility Condition Assessment is facility condition assessment software for colleges and school districts: facilities teams turn condition data and work orders into a ranked, bond-ready capital plan. Seven agents read the assessments and work orders, keep each building's condition current, cost and rank the projects, argue against every rank change and draft the board list. The Director of Facilities approves every change and the vice president releases the plan.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
Facility condition assessment software usually starts from the same place: every three to five years a consultant walks every building and leaves a 300–700 page PDF and a spreadsheet, and the capital plan is built from them. The day they arrive they start to go stale. A rooftop unit called "fair, 6 years left" in 2022 can fail every month in 2026, and the plan does not know, because the best evidence of decline sits in the work order system, where nobody reads it against the plan.
Ranks then change in a spreadsheet or a meeting, and the Board of Trustees and the bond oversight committee get a list without the evidence or the trade-off — which project dropped below the funding line to make room. Facility Condition Assessment puts seven agents on that work: they keep each building's condition and facility condition index current, rank the projects on the board's own criteria, argue against every rank change, and draft the board list, while the Director of Facilities approves and the vice president releases.
Estimated split, in calendar days, of one rank change made by hand and with the agents, assuming the failing asset is noticed at all between consultant cycles. The 'after' column totals 7 days, the target — our arithmetic, kept modest.
Seven agents read, track drift, cost, rank and challenge every move; the Director approves and the VP releases.
Tuesday, March 16, 2027, at Brandvale Community College: 3 campuses, 41 buildings, 1.6 million gross square feet and $118.0M of deferred maintenance. Here is how the Technology Center's HVAC renewal moved, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Each campus is a strip of building elevations drawn to their square footage, banded roof, envelope, HVAC, electrical and plumbing, each band with its condition word and the facility condition index underneath. The Technology Center is tagged for a change, its HVAC band hatched "poor?", and the proposal sits pinned on top of the ranked capital plan.
Technology Center HVAC renewal, 19 → 4: rooftop unit 3 failed 14 times in 12 months. $1.86M, waiting for you.
The Drift agent read 31 new work orders overnight. Rooftop unit 3, which supplies makeup air to the welding shop's fume extraction, had 14 corrective calls in 12 months against a threshold of 6, $41,700 of repairs, and a shop closed 9 days. It proposes HVAC fair → poor, with confidence 0.93: the building's index goes 0.21 → 0.34 and its deferred maintenance $2.22M → $3.59M.
Ray Castellanos, Maintenance Supervisor, on the work order: "replace, not repair".
The 2022 assessment priced rooftop unit 3 at $612,000 (page 47) and units 4 and 5 at $588,000 (page 48). Escalated at 3.0% a year to summer 2028, construction comes to $1,432,863; soft costs by board policy 6620 — design, contingency, project management, permits and testing, commissioning — bring the project to $1,862,722.
On the board's five weighted criteria the score goes 61 → 84: life safety 17 → 26 of 30, condition and failure risk 13 → 27 of 30, with teaching use 19 of 20 (38 hours a week, 186 students), accessibility 4 and energy 8 unchanged. The project moves from rank 19 to rank 4, ahead of Lot C at 79.
It raises three objections, each cited. Three calls were the condensate pump — conceded, but the score would still be 82 and rank 4. A $68,000 compressor could buy 3 years — answered: the unit runs on R-22, no longer produced, and units 4 and 5 are the same age. The third stands: Campus Center restroom accessibility ($0.92M, ADA transition plan item TP-31) would drop below the FY2027-28 funding line.
Its alternative: split Lot C. The accessible stalls and route ($186,000) keep their rank; resurfacing ($934,000) scores 52 alone.
Marcus asks Priya Raman to prepare the Lot C split, then approves the rank change with the reason code "Evidence supports the move". The decision is logged with the score, the three objections, the sources and the model versions, and the Plan writer agent updates the board line.
The Technology Center's HVAC band now reads poor and its index 0.34. In the ranked list the renewal sits at rank 4, marked "from 19" with its reason, and every project it passed shows the rank it came from.
Thirty-eight projects need $96.4M over five years; $71.8M is funded by the 2024 facilities bond, state capital outlay and scheduled maintenance reserves, and $30.3M waits for a future bond. FY2027-28 holds $14.46M of $14.6M. Priya can re-estimate or assign a project manager to many projects at once.
The Plan writer agent drafts the FY2027-28 board list from approved decisions only, with the bond oversight note and the state five-year request beside it. Line 4 says why the project moved, in plain words. The release checklist reads "not ready" until the audit pack is built, and only Dr. Whitfield can send it.
The trail lists who, what, when, why and the evidence for people and agents alike. The pack for the Board of Trustees holds the board list with a cited reason per project, 23 rank changes with their challenger records and approvals, 1,184 findings with their pages and 214 cited work orders. Pack FCA-2027-03 is sealed.
The same rank change, seen by the five people who carry it — what their day looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents read, track drift, cost, rank and challenge every move; the Director approves and the VP releases.
Reads consultant assessments, roof reports and drawings into findings by building and system, each with its page.
Reads each night's work orders, ties them to assets, and proposes a condition change when an asset crosses the threshold.
Escalates estimates with the construction cost index and adds soft costs from board policy.
Counts room hours and programs per building from the space inventory and class schedule, for the teaching-use score.
Scores and ranks every project on the board's five weighted criteria and shows what moves.
Argues against every rank change of 3 or more places or across a funding line, and proposes an alternative that keeps the line whole.
Drafts the board list, the bond oversight note and the state five-year capital request.
Approve and release. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The assistant answers with the work orders, assessment pages and plan behind it, and opens the screen where the person can act.
Why did the Technology Center jump to rank 4?
Because rooftop unit 3 stopped being "fair": 14 corrective work orders in 12 months against a threshold of 6, the welding shop closed 9 days without makeup air, the 2022 assessment said fair with 6 years left, and the unit uses R-22, no longer produced. Score 61 → 84: life safety 17 → 26 and failure risk 13 → 27. It waits for your approval.
What drops below the funding line if I approve?
One project: Campus Center restroom accessibility, $0.92M, ADA transition plan item TP-31. It would move from rank 10 to 11 and into FY2028-29. The Challenger agent found a way to keep it: split Lot C. The accessible stalls and route ($186,000) keep rank 5; resurfacing ($934,000) scores 52 alone. FY2027-28 then holds $14.45M of $14.6M.
Which buildings are most likely to fail next winter?
Three, by heating failures and condition: the Aquatics Center's boiler B-1 (7 work orders, on watch), Central Plant North's pump P-3 (4 work orders, poor HVAC) and the East Gym's unit heaters (past their life). None crosses the drift threshold yet; a change is proposed the night one does.
Draft the note to the bond oversight committee
Drafted for April 21 on the Board screen. It says the Technology Center HVAC renewal ($1.86M, bond category 3) is pending approval, with its cited reason, and that every listed project carries its evidence and approval in the attached pack. Dr. Whitfield releases it.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Every rule the agents work by is a setting, versioned and approved by the vice president. A new version is tested on last year's plan first.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Priority weights (board policy 6610) | Life safety 30 · condition and failure risk 30 · teaching use 20 · accessibility 10 · energy and operating cost 10 | Must total 100; the whole plan is re-ranked for comparison first |
| Drift threshold | 6 corrective work orders in 12 months, or repairs above 10% of replacement | Rolling window; preventive work orders never count |
| Cause confidence before proposing | 0.85 | Below it, the Maintenance Supervisor confirms causes first; required for any move to poor or critical |
| Finding confidence | 0.90 | Below it, the Capital Projects Manager accepts, corrects or rejects with a reason |
| Escalation and soft costs | 3.0% a year (mechanical); soft costs 30% (board policy 6620) | Re-estimate a source older than 24 months; round to $10,000 or $1,000 |
| Approvals due | 3 business days | The vice president is told on day 4 |
| Drift check | Every night at 5:00 a.m. | Twice a day, or on request |
| Keep plan records | Life of the bonds + 3 years | Or 10 years; work order history 7 or 10 years |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
Sources: Higher Ed Dive, April 10, 2026, reporting a 2026 state-of-facilities study ($156 per gross square foot of deferred capital renewal in 2025, up 8%; spending on existing buildings at 73.5% of what keeps the backlog from growing) · US EPA, phaseout of HCFC-22 (R-22) · 28 CFR 35.150 (ADA Title II) · 29 CFR 1910.252(c) (welding ventilation) · FERPA, 34 CFR Part 99 · "target" = design goal, measured in the live solution · "demo" = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · "typical" = published figures · "estimated" = our arithmetic from published inputs. Brandvale Community College, its buildings and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Facility Condition Assessment is facility condition assessment software for colleges and school districts: facilities teams turn condition data and work orders into a ranked, bond-ready capital plan. Seven agents read the assessments and work orders, keep each building's condition current, cost and rank the projects, argue against every rank change and draft the board list. The Director of Facilities approves every change and the vice president releases the plan.
The facility condition index is a building's deferred maintenance divided by its current replacement value. In the method the working solution uses, below 0.05 is good, up to 0.10 fair, up to 0.30 poor and above that critical; published bands vary. When the Technology Center's HVAC moved from fair to poor, its deferred maintenance went from $2.22M to $3.59M and its index from 0.21 to 0.34.
The Drift agent reads every night's work orders, ties each to an asset and proposes a cited condition change when an asset crosses the threshold — by default 6 corrective work orders in 12 months, or repairs above 10% of replacement. Preventive work orders never count, and a maintenance supervisor confirms the cause before anything moves to poor or critical.
The Priority agent scores every project on the board's five weighted criteria — life safety, condition and failure risk, teaching use, accessibility, and energy and operating cost — using only weights from approved settings. Every rank change of 3 or more places or across a funding line is argued against by the Challenger agent, with cited objections and an alternative, before the Director decides.
No. The agents read the work order system, the space inventory, the ERP capital budget and document management; they never write to the work order system or the ERP, and never change a condition, cost or rank on their own. The five-year capital request leaves as an export file for the state portal.
Yes. Agents propose, argue and draft; people decide. The capital projects manager prepares, the Director of Facilities approves every condition, cost and rank change with a reason code, and only the vice president can release the board list. The person who prepares a change can never approve it.
Yes. The Plan writer agent drafts all three from approved decisions only, with a cited reason on every line, and the vice president releases them. A sealed pack for each audience — the board, the bond oversight committee, the state reviewer or the internal auditor — carries the evidence behind every project.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your latest assessment, a year of work orders and your board's capital criteria — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own buildings first.
Every federally funded buy documented the day it is requested, with its proof.
1-min demoSingle Audit PreparationRepeat findings caught two months before fieldwork, each with a signed plan.
1-min demoSection 117 Foreign Gift ReportingNo foreign source missed or understated, every reported line traced to its record.
1-min demoWe'll run Facility Condition Assessment on your last assessment and a year of your work orders.