​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

​​

Boards of Review and Advisory

Introduction

Boards of review and advisory are established to provide recommendations based on reviews and monitoring to aid the efforts of the CSU Capital Planning, Design and Construction.  Authority and responsibilities afforded to each board vary greatly.

CSU Certification Review Board

Introduction

CSU Executive Order ​​No. 672, Delegation of Capital Outlay Management Authority and Responsibility, was issued in 1997 and delegated authority to campus presidents to directly manage the capital outlay process subject to campus compliance with the provisions of the Delegation of Capital Outlay Management Authority agreement.​

This executive order also established a Certification Review Board (Board) to: 1) review capital outlay management plans and campus performance in managing projects, and 2) recommend to the Executive Vice Chancellor, Business and Finance, a management delegation status for each campus.

Campuses are required by the executive order to maintain a current capital outlay management plan and submit updates to the Board. To support compliance with the executive order, the Board has developed the Guidelines for Capital Outlay and the Capital Outlay Management Plan for the Delegation of Capital Outlay Autho​rity and template.

Guidelines

Campuses are required to update the capital outlay management plans as follows:

  • Every January
  • Whenever there are staff changes
  • When the plan no longer reflects campus practice

These updates may be signed by the campus Vice President for Administration (VPA), however, should an update include a new VPA or other revision concerning the VPA, the update shall be signed by the campus president.

With each update, campus staff shall download the capital outlay management plan template to ensure they are using the most current version. The template includes the following elements:

  1. A compliance statement that the campus will follow all applicable laws, executive orders and the State University ​Administrative Manual (SUAM)​ in fulfilling its capital outlay management responsibilities;
  2. An organizational chart for administration of capital projects, on which the campus shall:
    • ​indicate a direct relationship between the campus deputy building official and the chief building official at CPDC, and between the campus Inspector of Record (IOR) and the campus deputy building official
    • provide signature authority for every position on the organizational chart (please note that positions filled by consultants shall have no contractual or monetary signature authority)
    • provide a resume for every employee position on the organizational chart
    • indicate which positions serve as executive facilities officer, deputy campus building official, risk manager, certified access specialist, construction administrator, project manager, and inspector of record; indicate how the project manager and inspector positions are staffed (i.e., consultant or employee). If any of these positions are project-specific hires and are not currently under contract, indicate “TBD” (to be determined).
  3. A narrative describing how your campus is addressing project management for auxiliary organization projects. Include any relevant documentation, such as sample agreement documents between the campus and the auxiliary organization. If auxiliaries manage their own projects, provide an organization chart and resumes for the auxiliary project management staffing.
  4. A report of training completed for each staff member
  5. A summary of projects that are in planning, design and in construction, as well as those projects that are completed within the past two years which the campus has managed under delegated authority. If any of the projects listed are contracted under a TO-CA master enabling agreement please indicate “TO-CA” in addition to the delivery method (e.g., CM at Risk, Collaborative Design-Build).

Reference​:

Resources/Forms/Templates​:


CSU Seismic Review Board

Introduction

The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake​ led to the1992-93 Budget Act providing for seismic reviews of CSU facilities. To assist in the process of implementing the technical review program, the CSU Seismic Review Board (SRB) made of subject matter experts was formed to advise the CSU as well as to provide support to each campus of the CSU through a Seismic Peer Review program.

Responsibilities

The SRB is an advisory board to the CSU.   Recommendations from the board have lead to establishment and maintenance of the CSU Seismic Requirements as well placement of structures on CSU Seismic Priority lists.   

Each board member, with the exception of the geotechnical member, is assigned to several campuses of the CSU in order to become familiar with the campus as well as provide peer reviews when called upon through a separate Seismic Peer Review Service.  ​All Major Capital projects of the CSU are required to receive concurrence from the associated review board member prior to submission of the project for Schematic Design phase review as well as at 90% Construction Documentation Phase of a project design.  Full details of the Seismic Peer Reviewer responsibilities can be viewed in the associated Master Enabling Agreements available for each campus to use. 

The geotechnical engineer member of the board is responsible for advising the CSU on incorporation of campus specific seismic ground motion parameters as well as systemwide support related to geotechnical issues.   

In the event of a major seismic event, a designated Seismic Review Board member identified per the CSU Seismic Review Board Emergency Response Protocol will act as the Designated Building Official of the impacted campus.  

Additional information related to the CSU Seismic Review Board can be found within the CSU Seismic Requirements.  

Meetings 

The scheduled quarterly meetings of the board are rotated among the campuses of the CSU to provide regular firsthand observation of the campuses as well as to accommodate  discussions related to seismic issues​ between the Office of the Chancellor staff, board members, and the campus staff.  

Members

Active :

Charles Thiel, Jr.  Ph.D.

Thomas Sabol, Ph.D., S.E.

Maryann Phipps, S.E.

John Egan, P.E., G.E.

Richard Niewiarowski, S.E.​

K. Dirk Bondy, S.E.


Emeritus :​

Theodore Zsutty, Ph.D., S.E​


Ex Officio :

Paul Gannoe (CSU)

Jack E. Andersen, Architect (CSU)

Ebi Saberi, Architect (CSU)


Reference​:

CSU Mechanical Review Board

Introduction

The CSU Mechanical Review Board (MRB), made of practicing professional engineers, is an advisory arm to the CSU in review of energy, electrical, mechanical, and associated controls. 

Responsibilities

MRB's primary purpose is to support CSU's efforts in improvement of the quality of new and existing structures through promotion of efficient operation, optimum energy utilization, lowest life cycle costs, as well as exceeding the established energy goals.   MRB members also provide peer review services for CSU Major Capital projects.  Letters of concurrence at Schematic and conclusion of Construction Documentation phases of design are issued by the MRB member contractually engaged.  Full details of the Mechanical Peer Reviewer scope can be viewed in the associated Master Enabling Agreements​ available for campus use.

Meetings 

The scheduled quarterly meetings of the board are rotated among the campuses of the CSU to provide regular firsthand observation of the campuses as well as to accommodate discussions​ between the Office of the Chancellor staff, board members, and the campus staff.  

Members

Active :

Kent Peterson, P.E.

Jairam (Jai) Agaram, P.E.

Steven Taylor, P.E.

Douglas Effenberger, P.E.

Steve Straus, P.E.

John Andary, P.E.

Ex Officio :​

Rachel Wong (CSU)

Jack E. Andersen, Architect (CSU)

Reference​:

CSU Fire Safety Board


CSU is currently in the process of developing a Fire Safety Board with emphasis on issues related fire and panic safety.   Additional information will be provided as it becomes available.