MIT Logo

FSILG Facilities Assessment

To advance a shared understanding the needs for physical renewal of FSILGs to ensure they remain a vital and vibrant element of the MIT community

FSILG Facilities Condition Assessment Purpose

The assessment phase (Phase 1) of the FSILG Facilities Assessment project was virtually completed as of June, 2018. All but two final reports have been delivered to the each principal FSILG contact. The focus is now shifting to how to incorporate the information in the reports from ARUP (the vendor selected for this project) into each FSILG’s planning and how MIT, the AILG, and the FSILG Cooperative can support those efforts. Here is the resource sheet each participating FSILG received with their report and here is the privacy policy on sharing of the reports, here is the presentation at the September 13 AILG Membership Meeting, summarizing findings and next steps for Phase 2.

These initiatives are underway:

  • Tom Stohlman and the AILG Facilities Committee have designed a simple Facilities Action Plan for use by each FSILG. It extracts key information from the ARUP report.
  • Staff from DSL, the MIT Alumni Association, and MIT Resource Development are designing a fall Fundraising Seminar to follow on and expand upon the May 9 session noted in the Milestones below.
  • The AILG Facilities Committee, with support from the FSILG Cooperative, is investigating aggregating common issues to simplify vendor selection and reduce costs.
  • The IRDF Alumni Boards are considering possible grant and/or loan programs for these common issues.
  • The AILG Accreditation Committee is planning to incorporate discussion of the Facilities Action Plan into the regular peer review process.

All the FSILG Facilities Assessment reports require significant context and judgment to be fully useful. Consequently, the reports are considered confidential and can only be shared for very specific purposes with specific people. At the September, 2017 AILG Membership Meeting this Handout describing the privacy policy was distributed and it remains the guiding document for access to any reports. Finally, please note this program does not apply to organizations where MIT already does the building maintenance, as is the case for Pi Beta Phi, Kappa Alpha Theta, and Kappa Sigma on the MIT campus. These facilities are already part of overall Institute initiative to address deferred maintenance.

For any questions, please feel free to contact AILG Building Safety Facilitator Tom Stohlman at bsf@mit.edu or 617-253-6030 or Bob Ferrara, DSL, 617-253-7495 or rferrara@mit.edu.

Milestones

Here are the significant milestones in the evolution of this project:

  • July, 2018 – FSILGs invoiced for Facilities Assessment fee through normal FSILG Cooperative Inc. monthly process. This fee is $7,500 for most FSILGs.
  • June 18, 2018 – ARUP debriefs DSL staff, AILG Board and Facilities Committee members, and FCI staff on summary (not individual) observations. Here is their slide deck.
  • June 1, 2018 – All final reports delivered to designated FSILG contact, except Zeta Beta Tau and Lambda Chi Alpha, which have active construction projects. Expect completion of these in July.
  • May 9, 2018 – A fundraising seminar was held to assist FSILGs interested in planning a capital or fundraising campaign. AILG Building Safety Facilitator Tom Stohlman led off with an update and shared this Phase 2 Resources and Expectations sheet. And here are the slides presented by MIT Alumni Association, Resource Development, AILG, and DSL staff. Also, a List of Useful Contacts and an FSILG Fundraising Guide were distributed. Another such event will be held in the fall.
  • January – May, 2018 – Remainder of FSILG Assessments by ARUP.
  • January, 17, 2018 – First week of FSILG Assessments by ARUP.
  • December 20, 2017 – assessment schedules sent to all FSILGs.
  • November 29, 2017 – Information session to provide information and answer questions about the project. Vendor selection (ARUP) announced. Each FSILG received a schedule notification and a link to an assessment questionnaire from Tom Stohlman. Tom Stohlman also created this detailed guide to preparing for the assessment, so FSILGs get the most useful information out of it. In addition, he created this FAQ list based on questions people had been asking, as well as this sample report, based largely on the experience during the pilot program.
  • September 20, 2017 – AILG Membership Meeting at which Dean Judy Robinson summarized the plans for the rollout to the rest of the FSILG community with these slides. And here is the handout describing privacy concerns that accompanied the presentation.
  • September 5, 2017 – DSL, Facilities, and pilot house leaders met to evaluate vendor reports and performance.
  • August 25, 2017 – Delivery of final reports for pilot houses (DP/No. 6, Sigma Kappa, and Delta Tau Delta).
  • May 31, 2017 – DSL, Facilities, and pilot house leaders met and selected 3 vendors for pilot assessments.
  • May 31, 2017 AILG Annual Meeting, Bob Ferrara of DSL outlined the assessment effort. This is the stated purpose:
    1. Provides insight and rough estimates into conditions and, for some, serves as a baseline for fundraising.
    2. Addresses FSILG Strategic Plan Theme #3 work of 2014.
    3. Provides foundation for planning building improvements
    4. Furnishes input for AILG Accreditation process
    5. Supports fundraising from MIT Annual Fund and IRDF, if FSILG chooses.
  • May 15, 2017 – MIT Facilities released this RFP to prospective vendors to conduct an assessment on one of the three summer pilot houses.
  • April 12, 2017 – AILG Membership Meeting at which MIT Dean for Student Life Suzy Nelson proposes the project. The proposal was subsequently been endorsed by the AILG Board as well as the AILG Facilities Committee.
  • 1998 – Last comprehensive facilities assessment of all FSILGs. Since there is a $7,500 fee per organization in the current project, organizations have a vested interest in understanding the scope of this work, the first full-scale facilities assessment in two decades. The 1998 effort was not very useful to the FSILG community because the reports were not understandable by lay people. A lot of energy has already gone into the current project to ensure the recommendations are easy to comprehend.