Custodial Services: PROS and CONS Custodial Benchmarking - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Outsourcing Custodial Services: PROS and CONS

Custodial Benchmarking

• University Custodial Administrators

Network of Ontario (UCANO) collects benchmarking data from universities across Ontario.

• 12 universities utilize APPA standards;

currently ranging from 2+ to 5-

• 8 universities currently have some form of

custodial outsourcing in their portfolio

Average Cleaning Areas (SqFt/FTE) Average Sick Days FTE/year

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 A B D E F G H I J K L M N O 5 10 15 20 25 30 A B D E F G H I J K L M N

About Wilfrid Laurier University

• Waterloo:
• 15,000+ students
• 2,400,000+ sqft building space
• 1,700,000 in-house, 700,000 outsourced
• 55 custodial staff, 2 Area Managers
• Brantford:
• 3,000+ students
• 500,000+ sqft building space, all in-house
• 10 custodial staff, 1 Area Manager

About Wilfrid Laurier University

• September 2013:
• 79 FTE
• 27,000 sqft/FTE
• Average 19 sick days/FTE
• Late 2015:
• 67 FTE
• 31,000 sqft/FTE
• Average 19 sick days/FTE

About Wilfrid Laurier University

• Mid-2016: Negotiated wording into the CA to

reflect opportunities to outsource custodial services

• Intention to contract custodial services through natural

attrition

• Late 2016: offered Early Retirement and

Early Exit Programs to custodial staff

• 16 staff members accepted the offer

About Wilfrid Laurier University

• January 2017
• 500,000+ sqft outsourced
• Lengthy RFP process and contract negotiations
• Slow start, initial drop in cleaning levels/customer service
• After 2017
• Unknown – contracting out through natural attrition
• Reviewing existing staffing models

PROS

• Flexibility in cleaning

schedules and frequencies

• Opportunities to create

efficiencies over time

• Sick time coverage, only

pay for work completed

CONS

• Staff Turnover
• Onboarding and training

for new hires

• Delay in services

Operational Cost Savings?

Panel Format

• Each panelist will have an opportunity to

present their outsourcing plan

• Questions will be held until the end of all

presentations

• Questions can be directed to an individual

panelist or to the group as a whole

Five Questions

• What led your institution to consider
• utsourcing?
• What model(s) did you consider and what

lead to the decision?

• What challenges did you encounter in initial

implementation?

• Are there ongoing issues (i.e. quality, cost)
• Lessons Learned?

Outsourcing of Custodial Services OAPPA 2017 .

• Over 3 million square feet of building space
• 52 buildings

Campus Facts

Outsourcing Process Phase 1

• Senior Administration was presented data and a

high level plan of outsourcing in June 2012.

• Messaging (“theme” of outsourcing decision),

selection of buildings (3), communication plan and draft Request for Proposal (RFP) was developed July to November 2012.

• CUPE 1001 Union informed November 13, 2012.
• RFP issued, evaluated, and awarded end of

December 2012.

• Vendor on site January 02, 2013.
• Plan of retirements / terminations was moving

faster than anticipated.

• The 2 year “no contracting out clause” from the

Union negotiations was expiring Summer 2015

Outsourcing Phase 2

• Phase 2 of the outsourcing was implemented in October

2015.

• Phase 2 outsourced 6 more buildings, approximately

30% of the campus square footage is now serviced by the vendor.

Outsourcing Phase 3

• Absenteeism continued to be a challenge.
• Implemented in May 2017.
• Phase 3 was the elimination of the midnight shift and

moving all staff to days and afternoons to assist with this absenteeism.

• The role of Executive Director, Facility Services

and Vice President, Planning & Administration each had a turnover in 2011, so change was prevalent.

What Led Your Institution To Consider Outsourcing?

• Dirty buildings
• Numerous customer complaints to Facility

Services and the President’s Office

• Cost
• Staff performance issues:
• Attendance
• Lack of motivation

What Led Your Institution To Consider Outsourcing?

Models Considered and What Led To Decision Made

• uWindsor was investing millions of dollars into establishing a

“downtown precinct” of multiple buildings – staff were required to be hired. Hire internally into a culture

• f high absenteeism and dirty buildings or take

the opportunity to provide a different delivery model?

• Request for Proposal (RFP) was performance

based and not strictly based on cost or a specific staffing level.

• A standard level of cleaning was requested in the

RFP (APPA Level 2) and the vendor decided how many staff to employ to meet this standard.

Challenges Encountered In Implementation

• Short window to execute the hiring of a vendor.
• The Union was notified November 13, 2012 and the

President was clear he wanted the vendor on site January 02, 2013.

• Facility Services finalized the Letter of Intent with the

vendor on December 23, 2012 at 5:00 pm.

• Facility Services was on site New Year’s Eve

with the vendor allowing them access to the selected buildings and orientating them to the campus (keys, custodial storage rooms, etc.)

Challenges Encountered In Implementation

• Limited media coverage responded to by the President.
• Small rally of Unions (internal and external) at a Board

Meeting in November 2012.

• The Union filed a Step 3 grievance which led to

arbitration.

• “Protection of Interest” clause – the employer can

contract out provided no unionized member is on lay off.

• Arbitrator upheld contracting out, only item specified in

the ruling was how existing staff would be re-deployed (by seniority).

Ongoing Issues

• None.
• When vendor arrived on site, level of cleanliness was

challenged – was easy for the vendor to make substantial improvements.

• Customers were “forgiving” early in

the switch, now they have expectations which the vendor must meet consistently.

Lessons Learned

• Implement changes outside of any collective

agreement negotiations.

• Need clear, concise messaging that all can

adapt to quickly – uWindsor had one word….Students.

• Selection of buildings in all phases to be
• utsourced need to relate to the messaging.
• Who delivers the decision to the Union –

uWindsor President.

• A “Phase 2” implementation was not clear in the original RFP,

didn’t cause major issues but needs to be refined.

Lessons Learned

• Negotiations with the Union in Summer 2013 were challenging,

several Memorandums of Understanding were required, but no changes were made to the overall outsourcing plan.

• Negotiations with the Union in Summer 2016 were dramatically
• different. There is acceptance of the outsourcing, the Union

proposed a 6 year agreement which was acceptable to Management.

• Union – Management relationship has substantially improved, there

is mutual respect, and the Union understands Management has

• ptions.

Note;

• Estimated Yearly Saving is to provide a Level 5 cleaning, the saving would

be much greater if a Level 2 was required.

• The contracted space is the Campus most user intense space, and about

85% of all event set-ups take place in those buildings.

Statistics Pre and Post Outsourcing

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Effective Full Time Staff (EFT) 73.4 72.0 66.1 64.8 61.7 Average Sick Days. 16.3 14.0 14.9 16.0 16.9 Estimated Yearly Saving $336,600.00 $200,800.00 $300,600.00 $237,600.00

Alternative Delivery Method- Custodial Services

• Currently have a blended service of in-house and contracted providers
• Contractor services are only delivered at our satellite sites
• Three satellite sites totaling 185,000 Sq. Ft.
• Decision to explore alternative services was based on financial reasons
• Contracted Services have been in place for 10 years and expanded two

years ago with a new satellite building brought on-line.

• Contractor was selected based on RFP process which was advertised on

MERX

• Services levels establish by University
• Five year contract 3 years + 2 additional years
• Average cost of contracted services $1.09/ sq.ft (gross)

Alternative Delivery Method- Custodial Services

In- House Operation

• Basically in – house services operating on Main Campus
• 1,822,444 Sq. Ft. + 634,670 Sq. Ft. Residence
• Operate 3 Shifts
• 59 Cleaners, 13 Residence Cleaners, 4 floaters, 2 recyclers & 10 casual

part-time cleaners (cover absences of FTE)

• APPA Level 2 to 2.5
• Average Cost $2.46/ Sq. Ft. (Gross)

Alternative Delivery Method- Custodial Services

Advantages of Contracting Out

• APPA Level 2 Cleaning Appearance will remain intact
• perating savings
• No new equipment or replacement equipment is required for the

duration of the contract

• Supplies are provided by the service provider
• Supervision is provided by the service provided
• Absenteeism is a non issue – continuous coverage provide
• QA and follow-ups conducted by service provider
• Flexibility in staffing/ hours of work/ split shifts
• Summer cleaning & floor restoration scheduled and provided by

service contractor

Alternative Delivery Method- Custodial Services

Disadvantages of Contracting Out

• If completed via Attrition, process is slow and in-house employees

have to be relocated to other buildings,

• If the “Bumping Process” is used, will displace a number of

custodians and these custodians will need to become familiar with their new assignment as well as become acclimatized to the changing environment. Casual cleaners ( part time) will be displaced and unemployed.

• Custodial Services will have an initial heavy training load with the

new service provider

• Initially, there will be considerable labour unrest

Alternative Delivery Method- Custodial Services

Challenges Encountered

• Collective Agreement – job security of members – no layoff or

reduced hours as a result of contracting out.

• Grievances
• Arbitration Ruling – In favour of the University
• RFP process – time consuming to ensure all provisional items listed

and scoring criteria

OUTSOURCING CUSTODIAL & CLEANING SERVICES

Terrence Donnelly Ctr for Cellular & Biomolecular Res (DC) 160 College Street Toronto M5S 3E1 UofT Building#: 160 Year of Construction: 2004 Leslie L. Dan Pharmacy Building (PB) 144 College Street Toronto M5S 3M2 UofT Building#: 161 Year of Construction: 2004 Gross Area: 16,832 Sqr Metres

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Labour Supplies & Equipment Management 91.4% 5.8% 2.8% Caretaking Budget

Caretaking Budget Cost Breakdown

260.2 330.5

424.6

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Cleanable Space (Square Meters 000's) Staff Levels (FTE) Fiscal Year

Cleanable Space and Caretaking Staffing – 1991 - 2013

Staff Levels (FTE) Extrapolated Staffing levels based on Space Increases Cleanable Space (Square Meter 000's)

IN-HOUSE LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY 2005 - 2014

• 5,000

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 20010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Productivity - Sq. Ft. per Day

SQUARE FOOTAGE BY AREA TYPE

18% 22% 12% 7% 2% 4% 6% 10% 19%

Public Circulation - day / evening Teaching Space Recreational Space Circulation space, elevators, stairs etc. Washrooms Libraries Teaching Labs Research Labs Offices

University of Toronto Cleaning Specifications – APPA Levels 1thru 5 – Task + Frequency Comparisons

Task Frequency Key 260 = The task is repeated 5 Times Per Week 208 = The task is repeated 4 Times Per Week 156 = The task is repeated 3 Times Per Week 104 = The task is repeated 2 Times Per Week 52 = The task is repeated 1 Times Per Week 12 = The task is repeated Monthly 1, 4, 48 = The Number of Times Task is repeated Annually AREA TYPE TASKS FREQUENCIES Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 2013 Auditorium - Carpet Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency 1Trash - empty 260 260 260 156 156 2APPA - Clean trash containers - Classroom 52 52 52 12 12 3Dust and spot clean Furniture 156 52 12 4 1 4Dust ledges, pictures and moldings 156 52 12 4 1 5Vacuum - traffic lanes only 52 48 6Carpet Clean - Spot Shampoo 52 52 12 4 7Dust Low Only 52 52 12 4 8Damp dust 52 52 12 4 9APPA - Spot-Clean walls and doors - Auditorium Seating and Foyer 52 52 12 4 10Vacuum - 14-16" Upright - full area 260 260 52 52 4 11Dust High only 52 26 12 1 1 12Dust baseboards 52 26 12 1 1 13Carpet Clean - Wet Extract 1 1 1 1 1 14Relamping (Daily Adjusted) Foyer only (20% of space) 260 260 260 156 52 2013 Auditorium - VCT 1Trash - empty 260 260 260 156 156 2APPA - Clean trash containers - Classroom 52 52 52 12 12 3Dust and spot clean Furniture 156 52 12 4 1 4Dust ledges, pictures and moldings 156 52 12 4 1 5Dust Mop - 24" 260 260 156 104 52 6Spot mop 52 52 7Dust Low Only 156 52 12 4 1 8Damp dust 156 52 12 4 1 9APPA - Spot-Clean walls and doors - Auditorium Seating and Foyer 156 52 12 4 1 10Damp mop with 24oz mop/double bucket & wringer 260 260 204 104 52 11Dust High only 52 26 12 1 1 12Spraybuff w/20" 1000+ rpm Machine & finish restore 52 26 12 12 12 13Dust baseboards 52 26 12 1 1 14Strip only 1 1 1 1 15Floor finish or sealer - Lay 3 coats 1 1 1 1 14Relamping (Daily Adjusted) Foyer only (20% of space) 260 260 260 156 52

DISTRIBUTION OF LABOUR BY AREA TYPE

Improve In-House Labour Productivity

• Training Program
• Biometric Attendance Monitoring
• Entrance Matting
• Ride-On and Walk Behind Scrubbers
• Wide Area Vacuums
• Robotics
• Floor Treatments

Cost Plus Contracts

• Contract Length
• Short Cancellation Clause
• Fixed Costs
• Adjustable Costs: Labour, Service Level

Contracting Out

• Calculate Savings
• Approach: Attrition
• Build Support
• Communicate
• Separation: Legal
• Contracts

Potential Issues

• Operational Effectiveness
• Supporting Documentation
• Prepare for the worst case scenario
• Strike
• Media
• Backlash
• Clear Separation

Dollar Savings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

.

Thank you

Any Questions