A LIFTiQ Assessment reads one health system's infrastructure across six operating domains and returns a single benchmarked number — then the evidence, the dollars, and the decisions behind it. VitalHaven is a plant mid-transformation, spending ~$600M to remake its own campus. This report is written directly against that plan.
The score measures how ready the institution is to make and fund the right infrastructure decisions over the next three years. VitalHaven runs an aging, high-acuity plant with real skill; the drag is on reliability, capital, and data — three faces of the same condition: the plant can't yet be seen clearly enough to get ahead of it.
The 1961 core and 1980s tower carry an FCI ≈ 0.19 that would normally trigger tens of millions in renewal — but the master plan is retiring that envelope. The largest single opportunity is redirecting ~$14–19M of renewal capital toward the systems that survive the transition and the resilience gaps that threaten the whole campus.
VitalHaven spends ~$3.9M/year on energy at a site EUI (~248 kBtu/sf) above cohort. We decomposed ~$310K/year in recoverable and avoidable cost — bill and tariff corrections, retro-commissioning, scheduling, control faults — the large majority self-funding within 18 months. None required new capital; all of it was invisible to alarms.
The central utility plant and primary electrical service run on a single utility feed with no independent backup path. The 1998 chiller plant conditioning the ORs and imaging suites has single points of failure that cover revenue-critical clinical space. This is the finding a rating agency, an accreditor, and a board would all care about.
A LIFTiQ Assessment reads the building from the inside — and the market, weather, grid, and regulatory environment from the outside. This context is pulled for every client regardless of what their meters report, then set against their own plant. Here is the live frame VitalHaven's findings are read against.
Summer-peak forwards sit ~14% above the trailing year. VitalHaven's supply runs on third-party energy with an undocumented hedge posture — a curve worth hedging against, and a reason on-site generation earns a feasibility look (§7.1).
Winter gas carries the usual seasonal lift plus firm basis in a mixed-humid zone. ~$0.9M/year of VitalHaven's spend is gas; heating-plant scheduling and the AHU-7 simultaneous-heat/cool fault (§7.2) both read directly against this curve.
A hot, humid summer drove roughly half of VitalHaven's ±12% month-to-month energy variance — the controllable share stays hidden until spend is decomposed monthly.
A misapplied demand ratchet sits on the primary electric account; two sub-accounts are on a suboptimal rate class. Grid operator has issued three peak-demand alerts this cooling season — VitalHaven's peak-load response is passive today.
See the correction →Custom-efficiency and — pending eligibility — clean-energy and resilience programs plausibly offset qualifying RCx/MBCx and resilience scope. A live engagement sizes this against current program rules before it expires.
Ambient signals are simulated for this illustrative report and refreshed on a live cadence in an engagement. The same feeds scale across clients — only the plant they're read against changes.
Each domain is scored 0–100 (higher = more ready) and read against a peer cohort. VitalHaven's cost and energy position is its strongest; reliability, capital, and data are the drag. The score moves most by closing the data gap and reconciling capital to the master plan — not by chasing energy. Select a domain for its full read.
The pattern down the Data column (mostly 2s) is the clearest signal in the matrix: VitalHaven's constraint is not expertise or equipment — it is decision-ready information.
Reliability (56), Capital (54), and Data (48) are related: reactive maintenance, an unreconciled capital plan, and fragmented data are three faces of one underlying condition. Data & Decision Readiness is the lowest score and the precondition for improving every other domain.
Below are the exposures where both are high enough to demand a decision. Dollar figures are directional revenue-at-risk, not predictions. Filter by consequence.
Three pools: operating-cost recovery that is self-funding, capital efficiency that is money not spent, and incentive capture that is currently un-pursued.
Reconciled this way, a $58M backlog stops being an anxiety and becomes a sequencing decision: retire what the plan retires, invest in the plant that survives, sequence the rest by consequence-of-failure. That is the difference between a condition report and a capital strategy.
Facilities is hospital-managed with system oversight; the ~$600M modernization runs through a separate capital-program office. The seam between them is where several of this report's most consequential decisions are currently falling.
Renewal decisions on the existing plant (hospital engineering) and replacement decisions in the master plan (capital-program office) are made on different data, on different cadences, by different people — which is why the renewal plan still carries capital for buildings the master plan is retiring. No single forum reconciles the two.
Closing this seam is the highest-leverage organizational move available, and it costs nothing. Biomedical engineering — which owns the imaging and OR equipment behind §3.2 and §3.4 — sits in a separate reporting line with no standing forum to reconcile the infrastructure that clinical equipment depends on.
The system has real but contested capacity. It can fund the right work; it cannot fund everything every hospital wants — which is why prioritization, not permission, is the binding constraint. The strongest move is spending committed capital where the master plan and the risk register agree it belongs.
Fund, defer, or accept — but decide on one shared, objective picture. Move through the horizon.
The Assessment ends in a decision, but the destination it points toward is continuous. The same intelligence that produced this report runs on, and reaches each person in the form they can act on.
A monthly readiness brief: score movement, the top three risks, capital-plan reconciliation status, resilience posture.
A control fault the day it appears — a diagnosed ticket with the likely cause and the expected dollar impact, routed straight to the CMMS.
A monthly variance memo drawn from the same data as the engineer's ticket, so the executive summary and the work order stay aligned.
A live reconciliation of renewal-vs-replacement, so capital stays planned only for buildings the master plan is keeping.
Each finding routes into an ongoing LIFTiQ Lever — the engagements that build toward the continuous operating state. The Assessment names the work; the Levers do it.
A LIFTiQ Assessment is a single flat fee — one acute-care hospital and up to five affiliated MOBs, eight to twelve weeks, kickoff to an in-person executive readout. Power ahead.
Experience the assessment → Back to the top