How does SeniorCRE track capital projects from board approval through commissioning?
Design target · Internal estimate
Overruns visible weeks earlier
Modeled estimate from SeniorCRE engineering. Not a result: no approved Evidence Record supports it, and business outcomes remain contributory. See Industry Findings for methodology.
Incumbents this workflow touches
Performs in-platform: Project budget Excel updated by the controller
Integrates with (Tier 3): Procore · Sage Construction · Yardi Construction
SeniorCRE does not “replace” the EHR. Where PointClickCare, MatrixCare, Yardi, or OnShift are in place, the workflow runs on top of the existing record via integration.
The problem
A roof replacement gets approved in October, started in February, and finished in July — over budget. The owner does not know when the budget slipped because finance and operations look at different numbers.
How the platform runs it
Each capital project has a scope, a budget, a vendor, a schedule of values, and a punch list. Invoices apply to the project; budget burndown is visible in real time. Change orders flow through structured approval. On completion the asset capitalizes with the correct useful life on the same record.
On the shift
The roof replacement at Property A shows on the capex board: approved budget $186K, contractor selected, work scheduled for the dry season, three invoice payments planned. Weekly progress photos upload to the project record. When the project completes, the asset capitalizes with the correct useful life; the depreciation entry posts to the GL automatically; the asset register and the GL agree by construction.
What the outcome looks like
Capital project overruns surface weeks earlier, vendor change orders are negotiated against documented scope, and asset commissioning produces a clean handoff to operations.
What goes wrong without it
On a spreadsheet-driven capex process, the project that should have come in at $186K finishes at $214K — the overrun is discovered at the final invoice. The asset gets added to the register six weeks after completion, sometimes with the wrong useful life. The audit prep on PP&E is a recurring fire drill.
Show me the evidence
Operators do not buy claims. They buy proof. If anything on this page reads as aspirational, ask us to walk you through the surface in production for a community at your acuity and payer mix.
Where this connects in the platform
Every facilities workflow runs on the same record. These are the feature pages, head-to-head comparisons, and pillar articles that go deeper on the surfaces this workflow touches.
Feature surfaces
Compared head-to-head
Facilities and life-safety references
Facilities workflows on this page map to the CMS Emergency Preparedness Final Rule, the Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) adopted by reference in 42 CFR 483.90, and CDC environmental infection-prevention guidance.
- CMS Emergency Preparedness Final Rule
CMS
Defines the four-element EP program — risk assessment, policies, communication plan, training and testing — surveyed under E-Tags.
- NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (as adopted by CMS)
CMS / NFPA
The fire-safety code surveyed by state fire marshals; drives K-Tag citations and corrective work orders.
- CDC Environmental Infection Control Guidelines
CDC
Authoritative source for water management (Legionella), HVAC, and surface cleaning protocols enforced through F-880.
- ASHRAE Standard 188 — Legionellosis Risk Management
ASHRAE
The water management plan framework CMS expects post-2017 memo QSO-17-30; drives the legionella workflow.