Five Common Issues Identified in FCA

A facility condition assessment (FCA) serves as the foundation for strategic asset‑management by exposing hidden costs, deferred maintenance, and performance risks. When facility owners or managers commission an FCA, they often expect a list of repairs. What they sometimes overlook is how these findings influence long‑term planning, budgeting and risk mitigation. In this article we focus on common issues found in facility condition assessments, examine why they appear and offer guidance on how to respond.

Issue 1: Deferred Maintenance and Backlog of Repairs

One of the most frequently identified issues in FCAs is a backlog of deferred maintenance—systems that should have been repaired or replaced but remain in service anyway. According to industry resources, deferred maintenance increases lifecycle cost, raises risk of failure and complicates capital‑planning. 

Deferred maintenance often shows up as:

• Roofs that show obvious wear but continue to leak or cause interior damage
• HVAC units operating past estimated remaining useful life
• Exterior envelope issues such as degraded sealants or corrosion of metal components

The consequence is higher operating cost, increased risk of unscheduled disruptions and accelerated deterioration of other systems. The recommended response is to prioritise repairs based on remaining useful life, cost‑impact and risk of failure.

Issue 2: Aging Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) Systems

Mechanical, electrical and plumbing components frequently feature among top issues in facility assessments. These systems are subject to wear and tear, often hidden behind finishes, and the cost to replace or upgrade can be significant. An FCA will typically document the remaining useful life, condition and replacement cost of MEP systems. 

Typical findings may include:

• Electrical switchgear or panels that do not meet current code or capacity demands
• Plumbing systems with corrosion, leaks or outdated materials that may pose health or compliance risk
• HVAC systems using older technology, leading to inefficiency and higher energy cost

For facility managers this means integrating MEP‑system condition data into the capital‑budget plan, and aligning such upgrades with energy‑efficiency and sustainability goals where possible.

Issue 3: Building Envelope and Structural Deterioration

The building envelope (roof, walls, windows, waterproofing) and structural systems often reveal hidden condition issues that impact performance, tenant comfort and asset longevity. According to facility‑management guidance, envelope and infrastructure systems are core to FCA efforts. 

Common envelope issues include:

• Leaking roofs or poorly performing waterproofing systems
• Window frames or glazing showing deterioration, drafts or water ingress
• Exterior wall systems with cracks, spalling or corrosion of structural elements

These issues can lead to high energy use, occupant complaints, damage to interior finishes, and the need for premature major repairs. Responding to them means performing comprehensive envelope inspection, estimating lifecycle cost for major replacements and scheduling proactive capital projects.

Issue 4: Site, Infrastructure and Exterior Systems Neglected

Often the focus of an FCA is the building interior and its major systems, yet site elements (parking lots, paving, drainage, landscaping) and infrastructure systems (storm water, site lighting) also contribute to overall facility condition and cost. Facility‑condition guidance emphasises that infrastructure must be assessed alongside building systems.

Findings may include:

• Paving and parking areas with cracking, potholes or drainage issues
• Site lighting systems that are outdated or non‑compliant with current standards
• Storm‑water management systems or site grading that fail to manage runoff, potentially causing damage or compliance risk

By including site and infrastructure condition in the assessment, facility owners avoid surprises and develop a holistic maintenance/capital plan rather than treating site work as separate or secondary.

Issue 5: Lack of Documentation / Unknown Remaining Useful Life of Systems

A key issue found in many FCAs is incomplete documentation of system condition, maintenance history or the remaining useful life (RUL) of major assets. Without accurate RUL data and condition baseline, capital‑planning becomes guesswork. According to the literature, FCAs that integrate remaining useful life and life‑cycle modelling deliver better outcomes. 

Problems found include:

• Buildings lacking up‑to‑date maintenance records or original construction/installation documentation
• Systems that have had undocumented repairs or unverified upgrades
• Unclear or absent remaining useful life tables for key equipment

These gaps hamper prioritisation of repair vs replacement, increase risk of premature system failure and make budgeting more conservative (or inaccurate). The best response is to insist on an FCA scope that explicitly includes remaining useful life estimates, asset inventory and cost‑forecasting.

Conclusion

Facility condition assessments provide facility owners, asset managers and stakeholders with critical insight into the physical health of an asset. The five issues discussed here—deferred maintenance backlog, aging MEP systems, building envelope deterioration, neglected site/infrastructure systems and lack of documentation/unknown RUL—are among the most common and impactful findings. By recognising these issues early through a robust FCA and integrating findings into your capital‑planning and maintenance strategy, you strengthen reliability, control cost and extend asset lifespan.

Frequently Asked Questions Five Common Issues Identified in FCA

Q: How often should a facility condition assessment be performed?

A: It depends on the age, type and usage intensity of the facility. Many recommend every 3‑5 years for older or heavily used buildings, and every 5‑10 years for newer, well‑maintained assets. 

Q: What deliverables can I expect from an FCA?

A: Typical deliverables include an asset inventory, condition rating for major systems, remaining useful life estimates, deferred maintenance cost table, and a capital‑replacement forecast. 

Q: How are FCA findings prioritised?

A: Prioritisation typically considers condition rating, risk of failure, impact on operations, cost to repair or replace, and remaining useful life. Those with high risk and short life span typically get the highest priority.

Q: Can an FCA improve budgeting and operations?

A: Yes. By identifying issues early and quantifying cost, FCAs enable proactive maintenance planning rather than reactive work, which reduces cost variability, improves reliability and supports strategic decision‑making. 

Q: Do site and infrastructure elements really matter in an FCA?

A: Absolutely. Site systems such as paving, storm‑water, exterior lighting and landscaping affect the facility’s overall condition, cost profile and performance. Ignoring them leaves hidden risks. 

If you need any assistance with Five Common Issues Identified in FCA and How Facility Owners Should Respond, please email info@rsbenv.com. We look forward to hearing from you.