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

60,000 50,000 Average Cleaning 40,000 30,000 Areas (SqFt/FTE) 20,000 10,000 0 A B D E F G H I J K L M N O 30 25 Average Sick 20 Days FTE/year 15 10 5 0 A B D E F G H I J K L M N o

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 CONS  Flexibility in cleaning  Staff Turnover schedules and frequencies  Onboarding and training  Opportunities to create for new hires efficiencies over time  Delay in services  Sick time coverage, only pay for work completed 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 outsourcing?  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 .

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

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.

What Led Your Institution To Consider Outsourcing? • 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: o Attendance o Lack of motivation

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 of 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 outsourced 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 options.

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 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.

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 • operating 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