THE END Confidential for The New Mexico State University 74 for - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
N EW M EXICO S TATE U NIVERSITY C USTODIAL S ERVICES M ANAGEMENT A SSESSMENT F INAL R EPORT B Y H UNTER C ONSULTINGAND T RAINING (3-14-2017) Confidential for The New Mexico State University 1 for Discussion Purposes Only N EW M EXICO S TATE U
BY
HUNTERCONSULTINGANDTRAINING
(3-14-2017)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 1
ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT CONTENT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 2
ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT CONTENT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 3
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 4
BACKGROUND
provides custodial services on a scheduled basis to 139 administrative, academic, and student housing buildings totaling approximately 3.8 million Usable Square
(CS) work unit.
assessment in February 2017 which included:
– Staffing and budget requirements; – Organizational structure and service delivery approach; – Current level of cleanliness; – An analysis of cost and cost reasonableness; – Recommendations for improving service to an APPA service level reasonably acceptable and affordable to the University.
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 5
BACKGROUND THE CRITICAL DOZEN QUESTIONS
The critical dozen questions custodial organizations must be able to answer:
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 6
1. How many cleanable square feet (CSF) of space are we responsible for cleaning? 2. How many custodians, and how much money do we need to clean all our buildings? 3. How many custodians, and how much money do we need to clean future buildings? 4. When is it best to perform our routine work, and to schedule our project work? 5. What cleaning level can we expect with our current FTEs and budget? 6. What cleaning level are we actually getting with our current FTEs and budget? 7. Are the days of the week equally work loaded? 8. Are the custodians equally work loaded? 9. What is our average CSF and GSF per custodian?
“We don’t know” is not an acceptable answer!
BACKGROUND
– Estimate FTE1 and budget requirements to achieve NMSU’s desired level of cleanliness; – Estimate the level of custodial service being delivered; – Gather information related to customer satisfaction with custodial services; – Benchmark NMSU performance indicators with other institutions using FY 14-15 APPA Performance Indicators (FPI) report; – Conduct cleanliness inspection of a representative sample of buildings; – Make recommendations to enhance services.
NMSU campus community:
– From FS Cleaning Workers and Supervisors:
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 7
1FTE – Fulltime equivalent for NMSU is the number of hours worked or available to work divided by 2080. For example one employee working fulltime for the
entire year equals one FTE; two halftime employees working the entire year equals one FTE; one authorized position for a fulltime worker that is vacant 3 months of the year equal 0.75 FTEs.
Frequencies and Schedules
BACKGROUND
NMSU campus community (continued):
– From Campus Stakeholders, FS Management/Supervisor, and FS Workers:
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 8
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OPPORTUNITIES
Opportunities exist for FS Custodial Services to embark upon a systematic program of service enhancement by orderly and methodically implementing recommendations contained in this report. This assessment report includes 13 findings and recommendations centered around the 10 below areas:
development;
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 10
DEPARTMENTAL STRENGTHS While FS Custodial Services faces challenges, it is successfully keeping the campus clean and healthy, with no severe service failures and has the following strengths:
element of a successful cleaning organization;
practices are in place to ensure employees are aware of both;
standard exists at the management level;
to conduct inspections based on such standards;
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 11
CURRENT CLEANING PERFORMANCE STATUS – FTE REQUIREMENT NMSU Current Cleaning Status – FTE Requirement:
Levels 3.2 and 3.4 based on buildings tours;
and not meeting campus community expectations;
clean Auxiliaries, Housing, and Athletics spaces at APPA Level-2 in accordance with Services Level Agreements;
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 12
slightly below APPA Level-4;
and the campus community being less than fully satisfied with the cleaning service;
better equipping the staff, and providing better training and professional development to its staff;
the campus space inventory file without validation by CS that the space is actually cleanable space;
1Authorized FTEs – the fulltime equivalent of the number of position authorized and funded in the budget. 2Available FTEs – the fulltime equivalent of the total hours of workers available to perform work after subtracting availability lost to vacant positions. 3Includes Workers, Supervisory, and Contracted FTEs for I&G, Auxiliaries; Athletics; and Housing common area, make ready, and summer conference support.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CURRENT CLEANING PERFORMANCE STATUS – FTE REQUIREMENT (CONTINUED)
NMSU Current Cleaning Status – FTE Requirement (continued):
Housing, and Athletics requiring APPA Level-2 service which is provided on a recharged basis;
cleanliness for the I&G spaces;
the SLA’s at APPA Level-2 while cleaning the rest of the campus at the indicated APPA Level;
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 13
1Authorized FTEs – the fulltime equivalent of the number of position authorized and funded in the budget. 2Available FTEs – the fulltime equivalent of the total hours of workers available to perform work after subtracting availability lost to vacant positions. 3Includes Workers, Supervisory, and Contracted FTEs for I&G, Auxiliaries; Athletics; and Housing common area, make ready, and summer conference support.
required to provide APPA Level-2 for the space covered by SLA’s, CS would need 152.3 FTEs compared to the 123.5 Authorized FTEs and 118.9 Available FTEs resulting from vacancies;
spaces at APPA Level-3
reason for the inconsistent results.
(possibly 10%-20% less).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CURRENT CLEANING PERFORMANCE STATUS – BUDGET REQUIREMENT
NMSU Current Cleaning Status – Budget Requirement:
Auxiliaries, Housing, and Athletics requiring APPA Level-2 service which is provided on a recharged basis;
the SLA’s at APPA Level-2 while cleaning the rest of the campus at the indicated APPA Level;
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 14
1Authorized FTEs – the fulltime equivalent of the number of position authorized and funded in the budget. 2Available FTEs – the fulltime equivalent of the total hours of workers available to perform work after subtracting availability lost to vacant positions. 3Includes Workers, Supervisory, and Contracted FTEs for I&G, Auxiliaries; Athletics; and Housing common area, make ready, and summer conference support.
cost, and the cost of equipment will be 5% of the labor cost;
by adopting industry Best Practices including better equipping and training the custodians; leveraging technology; adopting a formal quality assurance program, and enhancing its approach to providing supervision and leadership for the workers.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (ROOT CAUSES)
Factors contributing to cleanliness being less than desired:
– Budget and staffing constraints; – Standardization, training, and Best Practices are not fully functioning throughout all levels in the custodial organization - the workforce is working in a reactive mode; – No formal program/plan for performing Project Tasks - interim and restorative floor care (project work) is not scheduled or performed consistently; – Custodial workers leads are not planning and coordinating the work of co-workers and spending little to no time guiding/training them in according with what is normally expected of a lead or crew leader in the cleaning industry; – Primarily Custodial Leads are spending 100% of their time cleaning and 0% leading – typical expectation would be 50% cleaning and 50% leading – percentage not described in their position description; – Inadequate equipment inventory – the number of pieces of equipment per custodian and the annual equipment expenditure is well below expected; – Historical Available FTEs are less than Authorized FTEs due to vacancies, lack of hiring, and unnecessarily slow hiring process; – Historical hiring process and hiring freeze have hindered timely replacement of workers; – Lack of administrative and information analysis support to the manager and supervisors; – Lack of use of technology to assist in workloading, staff assignment, and scheduling.
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOTTOM LINE
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 16
1APPA, the professional association for educational facilities officers (www.appa.org) published guidelines that define
cleanliness level 1 through 5 with 1 being the best and 5 being the worst.
Estimated FTE and budget requirements:
whether the space is in fact cleanable space;
and summer conference support;
budget requirement;
FTEs in Current Organization Chart and FY 15-16 Final Budget Expenditures:
supervision; – Based on its existing staff operating in its current mode of operations, CS is staffed and funded to achieve slightly better than APPA Level-4 for I&G spaces as long as it is required to provide SLA customers with APPA Level-2.
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 17
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
STAFF & CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS – INFORMAL SURVEY SCORES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 18
ASSESSMENT RESULTS STAFF & CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS – INFORMAL SURVEY SCORES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 19
Staff & Customer Perceptions:
and customers to gather information on staff & customer perceptions;
Complaint Handling; Access; Quality, Competence, Customer Service, Ease of Doing Business, and Overall Cleanliness;
group participants expressed dissatisfaction with the custodial services they receive;
attributes, Timeliness the next lowest (5.11) and then Quality (5.53);
– The FS group average is much higher than the customer average with the largest gap in perception occurring for Responsiveness, Quality, and Timeliness – implying that FS as an
– The FS Management group average is much closer to the customer average with the largest gaps occurring for Complaint Handling, Access, and Ease of Doing Business.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS STAFF & CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS – INFORMAL SURVEY SCORES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 20
Staff & Customer Perceptions (continued):
management recognizes the opportunity to enhance services;
customer score of 6.26 – this is a good indication that the three groups are in fair agreement that the results being achieved by the custodial organization is less than desired;
cleanliness results it achieves has a customer approval rating of 61.3%;
Facilities and Services Customer Satisfaction Survey expressed in a different way;
insight into how aware each group is of each other;
Slides section.
Participant Group Communication Timeliness Complaint Handling Responsiveness Access Quality Competence Customer Service Ease of Doing Business Overall Cleanliness Participant Group Average
FS Management 4.33 5.67 5.33 7.33 8.00 6.33 6.33 6.00 5.33 7.33
6.20
FS Supervisors 9.00 6.50 9.00 9.00 8.50 8.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 8.00
8.40
Team 1 8.00 6.60 7.60 9.00 9.40 7.20 9.20 8.40 9.60 8.00
8.30
Team 3 8.08 6.69 8.92 9.54 10.00 9.31 9.92 9.08 8.92 6.46
8.69
Team 5 4.67 8.50 9.00 9.58 9.17 8.17 7.08 8.83 7.67 6.42
7.91
Team 6 5.27 8.64 9.36 9.64 6.36 8.64 8.09 9.18 8.55 8.27
8.20
Customer Focus Group 1 6.25 7.50 9.00 9.25 9.25 6.75 8.00 9.25 9.50 6.25
8.10
Customer Focus Group 2 2.60 5.00 6.80 5.40 4.60 5.40 4.20 4.60 4.80 6.00
4.94
Aux Services 6.50 7.00 9.00 8.50 7.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 7.00
7.70
Athletics 3.17 3.67 4.33 4.67 6.33 4.67 7.50 6.17 6.67 7.00
5.42
Housing 6.00 3.00 7.50 6.00 6.50 4.50 3.50 5.50 4.00 4.00
5.05 Averages 5.86 6.69 8.06 8.42 7.97 7.48 7.78 8.05 7.94 6.97 7.52
Fac & Serv 6.42 7.50 8.69 9.33 8.65 8.35 8.42 8.69 8.38 7.21
8.16
Customer 4.32 5.11 6.79 6.37 6.58 5.53 6.26 6.63 6.74 6.26
6.06
Perception Gap 2.10 2.39 1.90 2.96 2.07 2.83 2.15 2.06 1.64 0.95
2.10
Service Perceptions
ASSESSMENT RESULTS STAFF & CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS – INFORMAL SURVEY SCORES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 21
6.20 8.40 8.30 8.69 7.91 8.20 8.10 4.94 7.70 5.42 5.05 7.17
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 FS Management (3) FS Supervisors (4) Team 1 (5) Team 3 (13) Team 5 (12) Team 6 (11) Customer Focus Group 1 (4) Customer Focus Group 2 (5) Aux Services (2) Athletics (6) Housing (2) Partiocipant Score
Average Scores by Participant Group
Participant Group Average Overall Average
2 1
3
ASSESSMENT RESULTS FS STAFF & CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS PERCEPTION GAP ANALYSIS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 22
2 1 3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF & CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS – PERCEPTION GAP ANALYSIS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 23
2 1 3
Additional Gap Analysis
ASSESSMENT RESULTS SCORES BY ATTRIBUTE AND PARTICIPANT GROUP
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 24
Communication Timeliness Complaint Handling Responsiveness Access Quality Competence Customer Service Ease of Doing Business Overall Cleanliness FS Management (3) 4.33 5.67 5.33 7.33 8.00 6.33 6.33 6.00 5.33 7.33 FS Supervisors (4) 9.00 6.50 9.00 9.00 8.50 8.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 8.00 Team 1 (5) 8.00 6.60 7.60 9.00 9.40 7.20 9.20 8.40 9.60 8.00 Team 3 (13) 8.08 6.69 8.92 9.54 10.00 9.31 9.92 9.08 8.92 6.46 Team 5 (12) 5.27 8.64 9.36 9.64 6.36 8.64 8.09 9.18 8.55 8.27 Team 6 (11) 6.25 7.50 9.00 9.25 9.25 6.75 8.00 9.25 9.50 6.25 Customer Focus Group 1 (4) 6.00 3.00 7.50 6.00 6.50 4.50 3.50 5.50 4.00 4.00 Customer Focus Group 2 (5) 2.60 5.00 6.80 5.40 4.60 5.40 4.20 4.60 4.80 6.00 Aux Services (2) 6.50 7.00 9.00 8.50 7.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 Athletics (6) 3.17 3.67 4.33 4.67 6.33 4.67 7.50 6.17 6.67 7.00 Housing (2) 6.00 3.00 7.50 6.00 6.50 4.50 3.50 5.50 4.00 4.00
4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Participant Score Scores by Attribute and Participant Group
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 25
ASSESSMENT RESULTS GUIDELINES & PROTOCOLS
community accepted guidelines and protocols:
– APPA, the association for higher education facilities professionals, published Custodial Operational Guidelines for Educational Facilities (APPA Guidelines); – APPA Guidelines provide custodial services organizations with standard concepts and protocols for staffing and managing the cleaning function; – APPA Guidelines book is in its third edition, has been in public domain for many years; – APPA Guidelines book was updated to third edition in 2011; – APPA Guidelines accepted by the higher education and commercial cleaning industry as a de facto standard for custodial operations and staffing.
APPA Guidelines.
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 26
1Custodial Operational Guidelines for Educational Facilities (APPA Guidelines) – this is a publication
for many years and has been accepted by the higher education and commercial cleaning community as a de facto standard for managing cleaning operations (see www.APPA.org).
ASSESSMENT RESULTS GUIDELINES KEY COMPONENTS
– Define cleanliness APPA Level-1 through APPA Level-5 (Level-1 is best and Level-5 is worst); – Provide lists of cleaning tasks and the performance frequency for different categories of spaces to achieve the five cleanliness levels; – Provide normalized “time to perform” guidelines for all tasks from ISSA 540 Cleaning Times1 and adopted to higher education cleaning environment; – Provide a protocol for determining the FTEs and budget needed to achieve the desired cleanliness level by average organizations; – Provide an audit and inspection protocol for quality assurance, and for determining what cleanliness level is actually being achieved.
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 27
1ISSA 540 Cleaning Times – published by ISSA, The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association, and is
an industry accepted reference for estimating how much time it takes to perform cleaning tasks (www.ISSA.com).
ASSESSMENT RESULTS APPA CUSTODIAL SERVICE LEVEL DEFINITIONS BY LEVEL
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 28
Level 1 - Orderly Spotlessness: Level 1 establishes cleaning at the highest
historical focal point. This is show-quality cleaning for that prime facility. Floors and base moldings shine and/or are bright and clean; colors are
All vertical and horizontal surfaces have a freshly cleaned or polished appearance, and have no accumulation of dust, dirt, marks, streaks, smudges, or fingerprints. Washroom and shower tile and fixtures gleam and are odor-free. Supplies are adequate. Trash containers and pencil sharpeners are empty, clean, and odor-free. Level 2 - Ordinary Tidiness: Level 2 is the level at which APPA and the Higher Education housekeeping community has historically advocated as the level to aspire to. Lower levels for washrooms, changing/locker rooms, and similar type facilities are not acceptable. Floors and base moldings shine and/or are bright and clean. There is no buildup in corners or along walls, but there can be up to two days worth
All vertical and horizontal surfaces are clean, but marks, dust, smudges, and fingerprints are noticeable with close observation. Washroom and shower tile and fixtures gleam and are odor-free. Supplies are adequate. Trash containers and pencil sharpeners are empty, clean, and odor-free. Level 3 - Casual Inattention: This level reflects the first budget cut, or some
While not totally acceptable, it has yet to reach an unacceptable level of cleanliness. Floors are swept clean, but upon close observation dust, dirt, and stains, as well as a buildup of dirt, dust, and/or floor finish in corners and along walls, can be seen. There are dull spots and/or matted carpet in walking lanes, and streaks and splashes on base molding. All vertical and horizontal surfaces have obvious dust, dirt, marks, smudges, and fingerprints. Lamps all work and all fixtures are clean. Trash containers and odor-free. Level 4 - Moderate Dinginess: Level 4 reflects the second budget cut, or some other significant staffing-related problem. Areas are becoming
normal cleanliness. In fact, the facility begins to constantly look like it requires a good “spring cleaning.” Floors are swept clean, but are dull. Colors are dingy, and there is an
All vertical and horizontal surfaces have conspicuous dust, dirt, smudges, fingerprints, and marks that will be difficult to remove. Less than 5% of lamps are burned out, and fixtures are dingy. Trash containers and pencil sharpeners have old trash and shavings. They are stained and marked. Trash cans smell sour. Level 5 - Unkempt Neglect: This is the final and lowest level. The trucking industry would call this “just-in-time cleaning.” The facility is always dirty, with cleaning accomplished at an unacceptable level. Floors and carpets are dirty and have visible wear and/or pitting. Colors are faded and dingy, and there is a conspicuous buildup of dirt, dust, and/or floor finish in corners and along walls. Base molding is dirty, stained, and streaked. Gum, stains, dirt, dust balls, and trash are broadcast. All vertical and horizontal surfaces have major accumulations of dust, dirt, smudges, and fingerprints, as well as damage. It is evident that no maintenance or cleaning is done on these surfaces. More than 5% of lamps are burned out, and fixtures are dirty with dust balls and flies. Trash containers and pencil sharpeners overflow. They are stained and marked. Trash containers smell sour.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU ADOPTED CLEANLINESS LEVEL
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 29
management community have traditionally advocated APPA Level-2;
constrained budget, many colleges and universities have targeted APPA Level-3,
and APPA Level-2;
similar limited resources and budget constraints;
reported achieving APPA Level-3, and the average level reported was 2.58 – This has been the trend for at least the last three FPI reports;
between APPA Level-4 and APPA Level-3 (as close to APPA Level-3 as possible).
4 114 104 19 1 2% 47% 43% 8% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 20 40 60 80 100 120
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Percent of Respondents
Number of Respondents
FY14/15 APPA FPI Self-Reported Cleaning Level
1The APPA Facilities Performance Indicators (FPI) survey is conducted annually by APPA to collect comparative analysis facilities management benchmark data from institutions through the U.S.A. and Canada (http://www.appa.org/Research/fpi.cfm).
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 30
ASSESSMENT RESULTS APPA WORKLOADING AND BUDGET ESTIMATING PROCESS
Inputs Process Outputs1 Custodial – Cleanable Square Feet (CSF) Inventory3 by Space Type (classrooms, washrooms, entranceways, offices, etc.).
and frequencies
to perform” for tasks
parameters for materials and equipment cost Output for core functions
additional duties2 and supervision:
budget for cleaning
All – Average days worked per year. All – Average productive minutes per day. All – Average wage rate. All – Average benefits rate.
1. FTEs and budget for supervision and additional duties assigned to the personnel responsible for the core function must be added to the estimating protocol output to derive the total requirement. 2. Examples of additional duties are (i) custodians performing special event support; (ii) custodians performing snow removal; (iii) custodians hanging pictures or moving furniture; and (iv) custodians preparing dorm room after change of
3. Estimates based on NMSU Usable Square Feet Inventory developed by the consultant from space inventory data files provided from the CMMS system. NMSU custodial staff should subject the data to field validation to transform it into a Cleanable Square Feet Inventory data set in order to derive full benefit from the information.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU CURRENT FTES AND AVERAGE WAGE RATES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 31
wage rate;
performing cleaning duties;
time performing leader duties.
* APPA FPI defines Crew/Team Leader and one responsible for
planning and coordinating the work of co-workers, as well as guiding and training them while performing the same kind and level of work that they do for a majority of the time.
PCLS-Title-Grade FTE Avg Hourly Rate Cleaning FTEs Composite Rate K4004 - Supv,Custodian - 05 6.0 $14.68 K4003 - Custodial Worker,Ld - 04 7.0 $14.32 K4002 - Custodial Worker - 02 78.5 $9.82 K4008 - Custodial Worker,Sr - 03 28.0 $11.72 K2005 - Recycling Tech - 02 2.0 $9.67 K4002 - Custodial Worker - 02 -Locking 1.0 $9.82 Total Custodial Organization FTEs 122.50 Supervision/Leadership 6.0 Total Doing Cleaning Tasks 113.5 Additional Duty 3.0 113.5 $10.56
NMSU Custodial Workers Salary Profile
PCLS-Title-Grade Responders Avg Hourly Rate Cleaning Workers Responders Composit e Rate Custod Supt/ Mgr 86.0 $33.18 Custod Supvr/ Fore 83.0 $20.77 Custod Crew/Team Ldr* 72.0 $16.13 Custod/ Hsekeeper 99.0 $13.13 Othr Custod Positions 53.0 $15.76
APPA FY 14-15 FPI Custodial Salary Profile
171.0 $14.39
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU CURRENT IN-HOUSE CLEANING WORKER FTES VS APPA GUIDELINES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 32
summer conference cleaning at the time of the assessment;
the I&G spaces at the indicated level;
table and graph (cleaning workers only).
Cleaning Level FTEs APPA Level-1 296.2 APPA Level-2 183.4 APPA Level-3 144.5 APPA Level 4 113.4 NMSU (current) 113.5 APPA Level-5 94.1 NMSU Current In-House Cleaning Worker FTEs Vs APPA Cleaning Levels
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU CUSTODIAL ORGANIZATION TOTAL IN-HOUSE FTES VS APPA GUIDELINES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 33
compute total In-House FTE requirement, including supervisory minus contracted services FTEs;
this further impacts the number of FTEs available for cleaning;
are cleaned at the indicated level;
custodial worker FTE and cost profile details.
Cleaning Level FTEs APPA Level-1 304.0 APPA Level-2 191.2 APPA Level-3 152.3 NMSU (current) 123.5 APPA Level-4 121.2 NMSU (Available) 118.9 APPA Level-5 101.9 NMSU Current Total In-House FTEs Vs In- House Requirement
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU CUSTODIAL ORGANIZATION TOTAL BUDGET NEEDS VS APPA GUIDELINES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 34
while I&G spaces are cleaned at the indicated level.
Cleaning Level Budget APPA Level-1 $9,692,308 APPA Level-2 $6,386,057 APPA Level-3 $5,244,585 NMSU (current) $4,247,824 APPA Level-4 $4,185,428 APPA Level-5 $3,526,269 NMSU Current Total Budget Vs APPA Cleaning Levels
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU FTE AND BUDGET GAP FOR APPA LEVEL-2, APPA LEVEL-3 AND APPA LEVEL-4
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 35
NMSU Local Variables at the time of the assessment;
APPA Level-2 in accordance with SLAs in all three above cases;
housing make ready, turnover, and summer conference support;
evaluated for adequacy as recommended later in this report;
Usable Square Feet 3,763,650 Local Minutes/Day 390 Days worked/year 214 Average Wages $10.56 Fringe Factor 1.35 Hours per Year 2080 Supply Costs 0.10 Capital Budget 0.05 Total Spaces 12,568 NMSU Local Variables
I&G spaces operating as an average performing organization;
Item FTEs Budget Item FTEs Budget Item FTEs Budget
Workers Performing Cleaning Tasks 183.4
$6,068,973
Workers Performing Cleaning Tasks 144.5
$4,927,501
Workers Performing Cleaning Tasks 113.4
$3,868,344 Additional Duties 3.0 $97,476 Additional Duties 3.0 $97,476 Additional Duties 3.0 $97,476 Supervisory/Management 6.7 $219,608 Supervisory/Management 6.7 $219,608 Supervisory/Management 6.7 $219,608 Administrative Support Administrative Support Administrative Support Grand Total Requirement 193.1 $6,386,057 Grand Total Requirement 154.2 $5,244,585 Grand Total Requirement 123.1 $4,185,428 NMSU FY 15-16 Actual 123.5 $4,247,824 NMSU FY 15-16 Actual 123.5 $4,247,824 NMSU FY 15-16 Actual 123.5 $4,247,824 Gap (70) ($2,138,233) Gap (31) ($996,762) Gap 0.4 $62,395 APPA Level-4 APPA Level-3 APPA Level-2
NMSU CURRENT & HISTORICAL STAFFING (VACANT POSITIONS)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 36
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU CURRENT & HISTORICAL STAFFING (VACANT POSITION)
– Required FTEs – estimated number of full-time equivalent workers needed to deliver the desired level of service as computed by the APPA staffing protocol Authorized FTEs – full-time equivalent of the number of positions authorized and funded to be filled (e.g., one position for a full-time employee working the entire equals one FTE; two positions for half-time employees working the entire year equals one FTE) – Available FTEs – effective full-time equivalent actually available to perform work after accounting for vacancies (e.g., a full-time position that is vacant half
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 37
clean recharge clients spaces at APPA Level-2 and I&G spaces at APPA Level-3;
FTE Profile
Required In-House FTEs, Level-3 152.6 Current In-House Authorized FTEs 123.2 Historical Average Vacant Positions 4.64 Historical Available FTEs 118.46
industries norms and what is sometimes found at other universities;
address will adversely impact the ability to achieve acceptable results.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU CURRENT & HISTORICAL STAFFING (VACANT POSITIONS, FLMA & OTHER LONG TERM ABSENCES)
– Required FTEs – estimated number of full-time equivalent workers needed to deliver the desired level of service as computed by the APPA staffing protocol Authorized FTEs – full-time equivalent of the number of positions authorized and funded to be filled (e.g., one position for a full-time employee working the entire equals one FTE; two positions for half-time employees working the entire year equals one FTE) – Available FTEs – effective full-time equivalent actually available to perform work after accounting for vacancies (e.g., a full-time position that is vacant half
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 38
client space at APPA Level-2 and I&G space at Level 3;
FTE Profile
Required Total In-House FTEs, Level-3 152.6 Current In-House Authorized FTEs 123.2 Historical Average Vacant Positions 4.64 Historical Average Persons on FLMA 6.00 Historical Available FTEs 112.56
assessment;
somewhat, but not on a one-for-one basis since some of this absence is accounted for in the APPA protocol local variable Average Number of Days Worked Per Year.
9 8 8 12 8 12 12 8 11 12 8 9 9 9 14 14 18 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 7/1/14 8/1/14 9/1/14 10/1/14 11/1/14 12/1/14 1/1/15 2/1/15 3/1/15 4/1/15 5/1/15 6/1/15 7/1/15 8/1/15 9/1/15 10/1/15 11/1/15 12/1/15 1/1/16 2/1/16 3/1/16 4/1/16 5/1/16 6/1/16 7/1/16 8/1/16 9/1/16 10/1/16 11/1/16 12/1/16 1/1/17 2/1/17 Vacant Positions Date
Vacant Positions Plus Long Term Medical Absence
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU CUSTODIAL SERVICES WORKERS RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY PROFILE
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 39
Custodial Workforce Retirement Eligibility Profile:
low turnover rate, however, as noted in the preceding slides, there were 12 vacant positions at the time of the site visit;
at the time of the site visit;
eligibility rate rising to 44 over the next five years;
process that is capable of filling vacant positions within two weeks of the position becoming vacant;
retirements.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION – RECRUITMENT AND HIRING
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 40
Finding-X
Filling vacant custodian position takes too long.
positions at the time of the site visit with 33 custodians eligible to retire;
custodian can take as long as three months or more;
not complex and/or the skills can be developed by the employer, taking longer than two weeks to fill a position is not adequate to support a high-performing cleaning organization;
Recommendation-X:
retaining custodial employees, including NMSU Central Human Resources. The team should formally map the recruitment and hiring process to eliminate non-valued added steps. The goal should be to reduce the time to fill a vacant custodial position to two weeks or less.
should not be subjected to the same process used to hire higher skilled personnel.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION – RECRUITMENT AND HIRING
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 41
Recommendation-X (continued):
workers to reduce the time to fill vacant positions to two weeks or less;
pool contains multiple qualified candidates;
positions;
custodial positions to define the recruitment competitive area, and compare hourly wages and other compensation elements such as, but not limited to fringe benefits and shift differentials to those in the recruitment competitive area;
program to determine if FS can be in a position to train candidates who do not already have cleaning experience.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND WORKER TO SUPERVISOR-LEADER RATIO
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 42
ASSESSMENT RESULTS CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 43
Observations:
to be managed and led by a Manager, 6 Supervisors, and 7 Custodial Worker Leads;
job titles Custodial Worker and Custodial Worker, Sr.;
Worker Leads time should be spent performing cleaning tasks and what percentage should be spent assisting the supervisors performing the following non-cleaning activities:
– Assistance in providing guidance and directions for the frontline custodial workers; – Assistance in planning and coordinating the work of the frontline custodial workers; – Assistance in conducting quality assurance activities (cleanliness inspections and audits) ; – Assistance in communicating with building occupants on matters related to cleaning their building;
virtually 100% of their time functioning as Custodial Workers;
not trained to function as true Crew Leaders, and are not performing as Crew Leaders;
promotional opportunities are a positive aspect and should not be abandoned.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS WORKER TO SUPERVISOR-LEADER RATIO
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 44
Supervisory and Leadership Observation:
Ratio of 7.46 would be comparable to that reported by the 242 FY 14-15 FPI participants, and considered acceptable;
workers close to 100% of their time, the NMSU Workers-to-Supervisor/Lead Ratio jumps to 19.30 which implies:
– The workers do not have enough guidance and direction; – The supervisors do not have enough assistance planning and coordinating the work of workers; – There is not enough staff guiding and training the workers;
higher than all benchmarks, further enforcing the conclusion that the NMSU custodians do not have enough supervision and leadership.
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 45
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CUSTODIAL SERVICES ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Finding-1: Need to transform into a high-performing professional cleaning organization:
Services into a modern day, high-performing professional cleaning organization. Facilities Services has taken the first step in this transformation by undertaking this management assessment.
Recommendation-1:
implemented by a formally appointed Custodial Services Enhancement Program Implementation Team (CSEP-IT) made up of Facilities and Services employees and stakeholders from throughout the campus.
Management Plan (ICMP) that officially prescribes the level of cleanliness required for each category of space, and establishes appropriate standards for all key aspects of the custodial
concepts of cleaning; (2) adopt an industry standard upon which to base staffing, workloading, and budget; (3) standards for chemicals, consumables, supplies, tools, and equipment; (4) standard operating procedures (SOPs) for key cleaning and operating processes; and (5) other elements critical to a high-performing cleaning operation.
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 46
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CUSTODIAL SERVICES ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Recommendation-1 (continued):
– The FTEs and budget estimated by the APPA staffing protocol assumes the work is being done by an average organization, with average supplies and equipment, average trained staff, average productivity rate, and average processes and procedures – high- performing organizations can produce better than predicted results; – The staffing and budget analysis contained in this report is based on useable square feet
find spaces in the analysis that should be removed;
which supports all of the other individual findings and recommendations contained in this
context of the subject matter they relate to, they should be viewed as integrated components of this foundation, and approached in a thoughtful, methodical, and integrated fashion.
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 47
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE – SAMPLE STRUCTURE
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 48
Finding-2:
Revise Leadership Duties and Consider Different Organizational Structure:
devoted to leadership duties by the Leads is too small to be effective, and is not conducive to developing highly-skilled crew leaders and supervisors;
expected of such a position, however, the holder of these positions are not properly trained to perform the duties and are not performing them;
time to be spent performing leadership duties vs. cleaning tasks – this has resulted in virtually 100% cleaning;
assurance support, resulting is the manager spending too much time taking phone calls and chasing day-to-day issues, detracting from time to devote to customer outreach and
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE – SAMPLE STRUCTURE (CONTINUED)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 49
Recommendation-2:
positions, and increase the Leads positions so that the Workers-to-Supervisor/Lead Ratio becomes closer to the 5.58 FY 14-15 participant average, and no greater than the NMSU current 7.56 ratio as shown in the previous slide;
time be spent performing the leadership duties, and 50% performing cleaning tasks;
performing cleaning organizations for review and benchmarking;
for custodial workers. Additionally, this evolution should only be undertaken in a manner that avoids adverse personnel actions such as demotions and pay cuts, in order to not adversely impact workforce moral.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE – SAMPLE STRUCTURE
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 50
Recommendation-2 (continued):
exceed 10 based on FTEs;
number of Leads);
cleaning, and 4 hours leading the crew and providing audits and inspections for quality control, as well as communicating with the building occupants;
and orderly manner, so as not to decrease the morale of the workforce;
empowered Crew Leaders positions – it is not enough to be a good Custodial Worker in order to be a good crew leader;
title system, however, there must be a concerted effort to recast how the FS workforce currently thinks of a Custodial Worker Lead.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE SUPPORT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 51
Finding-3: Need for Administrative, Training, and Quality Assurance support:
issues detracting from time to devote to customer outreach and organizational strategic activities;
performance, and does not have administrative support to help assembly such information;
that high-performing cleaning organizations are staffed to perform with their own in-house personnel;
Recommendation-3:
administrative, training, and quality assurance areas;
– Provide value from information contained in the CMMS system and other University information systems holding data that would contribute to custodial performance analysis and decision making; – Assist the Custodial Manager and Supervisors in developing written standard operating procedures (SOPs); – Assist the Custodial Manager and Supervisors in developing and providing consistent skills training for the workers; – Assist the Custodial Manager and Supervisors in developing and executing a formal structured quality assurance program that records cleanliness inspection/audit results, analyze trends, and tracks corrective action; – Allow the Custodial Manager and Supervisors more time to reach out to customers and work on strategic organizational enhancement activities.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TRAINING
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 52
Finding-4: Need for an in-house managed formal training program and an in-house trainer:
formal cleaning skills training is being provided to the workers on a consistent basis;
formal cleaning skills training for new workers nor is there cleaning skills retraining for existing workers;
expected – high-performing custodial organizations recognize that this approach tends to lead to inconsistent results, and probable perpetuation of poor practices and techniques;
lack of a formal training program and SOPs;
procedures and training, however, the workers are not well versed in the program, and most
the HONORS manual, nor did they report ever having a discussion about them;
could not describe the level of cleanliness expected from them.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TRAINING
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 53
Recommendation-4:
two FS staff member(s) as a primary responsibility. It is not unusual for a custodial
skills training;
the organization’s adopted concept of cleaning, and the equipment and supplies actually being used by the organization;
provided to existing employees;
their only language, CS should consider steps to provide training in Spanish;
during their off hours;
training and acquisition of cleaning skills should play a part in custodial workers promotions.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUPERVISORY AND CREW LEADER TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 54
Finding-5: Need for supervisory and crew leader training and professional development:
are plans to have the other two attend in the near future, supervisors do not regularly participate in other cleaning professional development activities;
there is only casual familiarity at the supervisor level, and virtually no familiarity at the worker level;
Recommendation-5:
and leadership professional development for its Supervisors and Custodial Worker Leads;
trade shows paid for by the NMSU;
levels of the organization.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EQUIPMENT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 55
Finding-6: Need to review the equipment inventory and equipment procurement program:
thumb used by the Consultant is any annual equipment budget less than 5% of labor cost warrants further review ;
by the Custodial Manager;
workers;
worked with. One client with a similar workforce had 462 pieces of equipment in inventory.
Recommendation-6:
program in place that provides the correct quality and quantity of equipment;
vendors or suppliers, to assist in conducting an cleaning equipment needs analysis based on the specific buildings and cleaning needs on the NMSU campus;
piece of equipment to support procurement decisions based on age, life cycle, condition, and economic productivity rates.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EQUIPMENT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 56
Recommendation-6 (continued):
year-end, all equipment would be inspected and accounted for;
economic productivity rates;
do not rely on year-end funds;
in-house by acquiring an individual with the appropriate skill set – likely not a full FTE;
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STANDARDIZED PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 57
Finding-7: Need to review and redevelop standardized processes and procedures:
list, the HONORS manual with flow diagrams, and basic generic cleaning schedules, however, the workers are not well trained on these items and there is no program to ensure worker compliance.
Recommendation-7:
work in accordance with the SOPs;
standard processes and SOPs;
customer focus group participants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT TASKS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 58
Finding-8: Need for a program to ensure project tasks are performed as prescribed:
prescribed in the APPA Guidelines for APPA Level-3. The absence of these and other project tasks contribute to shorter service life of surfaces, promote dirt build-up, and increase the difficulty of routine cleaning;
as every other year;
Care as annually;
to achieve APPA Level-3 CS infrequent floor care activity.
Recommendation-8:
and reinstate interim and restorative tasks consistent with what is prescribed in the APPA Guidelines for APPA Level-3;
ensure I&G spaces receive appropriate project work.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JANITOR CLOSETS AND JANITOR CARTS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 59
Finding-9: Need for cleaner orderly janitor closets and carts:
stand to be cleaner, more uniform, more orderly, and more organized.
Recommendation-9:
closets and carts. After these standards are developed, it is recommended that color pictures be taken of a janitor closet and cart that meet the standard, and be posted in each closet and placed in each cart. The workers should be required to participate in several “Closet and Cart Stand-Down Days” where they would be allowed to defer an hour or so of regular cleaning to perform a quality job of cleaning and organizing their closets and carts. Cleaning and
and carts;
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INFORMATION SYSTEMS – FULL USE OF STAFFING AND OPERATION SOFTWARE
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 60
Finding-10: Need to use technology to assist in workloading, staff assignment and scheduling:
software, and has begun to make use of it.
Recommendation-10:
and that APPA CleanOpsStaff-3ed™ software be fully implemented in these buildings as proof
are work loaded, scheduled, balanced, and audited/inspected under the APPA protocol supported by the APPA CleanOpsStaff-3ed™ software.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION INFORMATION SYSTEMS – PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REVIEW ACTIVITY
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 61
Finding-11: Need to make use of custodial performance indicators:
administrative and information support to assist managers with collecting and analyzing custodial performance data. NMSU’s custodial organization would benefit from having ready access to information that would assist management with information-driven operational
regular basis include, but not limited to, Cost/CSF by building and/or area, Supplies Use Rate by building and/or area, Absenteeism Rate, Vacancy Rate by crew, CSF/FTE, Cleanliness Inspection Scores, Equipment Age and Condition data, complaint trends, and Accident/Incident data.
Recommendation-11:
Indicators Review Program, under which key custodial performance indicators as mentioned in this finding would be analyzed and reviewed in regular recurring review sessions with participants from Custodial Services and other FS work units to provide a second set of eyes.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: NMSU AUDIT/INSPECTION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 62
Finding-11: Need for a formal quality assurance program:
inspections of each building. There is no systematic plan for auditing and inspecting spaces. This could mean that a building could go for years without getting a quality assurance audit. Additionally, inspection are done informally at the discretion of the supervisor, and there is no method of detecting trends for taking corrective action on issues before they adversely impact the building occupants.
Recommendation-11:
audit/inspection program in line with the 10% Random Selection for Extrapolated Results audit protocol. The audit package generation process for this protocol is fully automated by CleanOpsStaff-3ed™, and the inspections can be conducted using iPhones, iPads, iPods, and Android devices or printed inspection sheets.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION CLEANABLE SQUARE FEET INVENTORY DATA SET
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 63
Finding-12: Need for a Cleanable Square Feet Data Set:
during this assessment. The Consultant has imported Usable Square Feet data into the APPA
Usable Square Feet data to transform it to become a Cleanable Square Feet Inventory Data Set.
Recommendation-12:
usable square feet data set provided by the Consultant. It is recommended that Custodial Services select several buildings to serve as a pilot project group to fully develop the cleanable square feet inventory and fully implement CleanOpsStaff-3ed™ for the pilot. After a proof of concept phase for the pilot project, CS should phase in several more buildings at a time, until all spaces in CleanOpsStaff-3ed™ inventory file provided by the consultant have been validated to be cleanable or non-cleanable.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS – CUSTOMER OUTREACH PROGRAM
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 64
Finding-13: Need for enhanced customer communication:
what custodial services to expect, or who to contact if they have custodial issues. While the customer must take some responsibility to be informed, the primary responsibility to communicate about its services falls to CS. It is fortunate that NMSU has a Building Coordinator/Manager program in place which increases the opportunity to improve communication.
Recommendation-13:
Building Coordinator/Manager Program. Closer ties between CS and the Building Coordinators/Managers can improve the ability for CS, and the customer to have more productive interactions aimed at improving communication.
web pages dedicated exclusively to custodial services that provide accurate and current information to the campus about the custodial services program which can be reached from myNMSU with minimum mouse clicks.
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 65
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU COMPARISON TO COHORTS AND SUMMARY BENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 66
level.
$0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 $1.60 $1.80 New Mexico St Univ Research High RMA All APPA Public 12,000-19,999
Custodial Cost/GSF
Institution Custodial Cost/GSF New Mexico St Univ $1.12 All Research High $1.27 All RMA $1.29 All All APPA $1.41 All Public $1.41 All 12,000-19,999 $1.54
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU COMPARISON TO COHORTS AND SUMMARY BENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 67
– NMSU average salary rate is lower than all summary benchmarks; – NMSU average salary rate is lower the cohort average.
$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 New Mexico St Univ Cohort Average Research High RMA Overall for All Participants 12,000-19,999 Public
Custod/ Hsekeeper Avg Salary
Wage Rate Comparison:
Institution Custod Supt/ Mgr Avg Salary Custod Supvr/ Fore Avg Salary Custod Crew/Team Ldr Avg Salary Custod/ Hsekeeper Avg Salary Othr Custod Positions Avg Salary New Mexico St Univ $25.26 $14.68 $14.32 $9.99 Overall for All Participants $33.18 $20.77 $16.13 $13.13 $15.76 RMA $30.11 $19.39 $14.99 $12.78 $17.37 Research High $31.45 $18.93 $14.62 $12.67 $16.27 Public $34.50 $21.01 $43.47 $13.95 $16.46 12,000-19,999 $28.95 $19.75 $16.56 $13.63 $15.10 Cohort Average $27.34 $18.52 $14.13 $12.10 $17.49
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU COMPARISON TO COHORTS AND SUMMARY BENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 68
Institution Benefit Rate New Mexico St Univ 34.0% Overall for All Participants 50.2% RMA 46.8% Research High 41.6% Public 47.2% 12,000-19,999 59.1% Cohort Average 42.8%
Benefit Rate Comparison:
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU COMPARISON TO COHORTS AND SUMMARY BENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 69
Institution Students Custodial GSF Cleaned Custodial Cost Custodial Cost/GSF Custodial Cost/ Student Custodial Staffing Density (GSF/FTE) Custodial Reported Service Level New Mexico St Univ 12,902 3,220,411 $3,606,733 $1.12 $280 31,511 2.00 All APPA 13,106 3,500,525 $4,788,591 $1.41 $404 34,899 2.00 All RMA 16,727 3,785,388 $4,399,208 $1.29 $330 36,501 2.00 All Research High 16,136 3,755,406 $4,773,796 $1.27 $338 34,351 2.00 All Public 15,003 3,910,630 $5,171,174 $1.41 $311 35,246 2.00 All 12,000-19,999 15,248 2,782,297 $3,964,062 $1.54 $262 32,073 2.00 Appalachian St Univ 17,932 2,344,307 $3,504,280 $1.49 $195 26,755 3.00 Iowa St Univ 34,732 6,906,309 $7,186,128 $1.04 $207 50,596 Univ Cal/Irvine 30,736 5,281,130 $4,886,476 $0.93 $159 64,799 4.00 Univ Cal/Santa Cruz 17,866 3,002,921 $3,768,309 $1.25 $211 50,554 Univ Colorado/Boulder 28,399 4,907,736 $4,702,821 $0.96 $166 39,109 4.00 Univ Colorado/Denver 18,270 3,760,109 $3,453,125 $0.92 $189 36,506 2.00 Univ Idaho 8,834 2,830,777 $2,749,326 $0.97 $311 47,180 3.00 Univ No Carolina/Greensboro 14,915 3,050,926 $4,450,452 $1.46 $298 27,486 3.00 Univ No Dakota 12,420 3,625,200 $4,912,079 $1.35 $396 37,478 3.00 Univ Oregon 22,832 3,857,650 $4,839,509 $1.25 $212 38,577 2.00 Univ So Alabama 16,462 2,662,397 $3,271,677 $1.23 $199 29,582 2.00 Wright St Univ 13,753 3,345,782 $4,142,206 $1.24 $301 36,767 2.00 Cohort Average 19,763 3,797,937 $4,322,199 $1.17 $237 40,449 2.80
Performance Indicators Comparison:
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU COMPARISON TO COHORTS AND SUMMARY BENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 70
$0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 $1.60 $1.80 Univ Colorado/Denver Univ Cal/Irvine Univ Colorado/Boulder Univ Idaho Iowa St Univ New Mexico St Univ Cohort Average Univ So Alabama Wright St Univ Univ Cal/Santa Cruz Univ Oregon All Research High All RMA Univ No Dakota All APPA All Public Univ No Carolina/Greensboro Appalachian St Univ All 12,000-19,999
Custodial Cost/GSF
Observations:
cohort average;
summary benchmarks;
except four cohorts;
lower wage rate and under- staffing.
Custodial Cost Per GSF Comparison:
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU COMPARISON TO COHORTS AND SUMMARY BENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 71
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 Univ Cal/Irvine Univ Colorado/Boulder Univ Colorado/Denver Appalachian St Univ Univ So Alabama Iowa St Univ Univ Cal/Santa Cruz Univ Oregon Cohort Average All 12,000-19,999 New Mexico St Univ Univ No Carolina/Greensboro Wright St Univ All Public Univ Idaho All RMA All Research High Univ No Dakota All APPA
Custodial Cost/ Student
Observations:
the cohort average;
all summary benchmarks except one;
all except four cohorts;
lower wage rate and under- staffing.
Custodial Cost Per Student Comparison:
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU COMPARISON TO COHORTS AND SUMMARY BENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 72
Observations:
than the cohort average;
summary benchmarks;
except three cohorts;
is responsible for fewer square feet of space than most custodial workers reported in the APPA FY 14- 15 FPI.
Custodial Staffing Density (GSF/FTE) Comparison:
ASSESSMENT RESULTS NMSU COMPARISON TO COHORTS AND SUMMARY BENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 73
Observations:
Reported Service Level-2 in the APPA FY 14-15 FPI;
3 or Level-4;
the FPI survey are determined formally by audit for some participants and by professional informal estimation by others;
accept whole numbers as input.
Custodial Reported Service Level Comparison:
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 74
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 75
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 76
APPENDIX ASSESSMENT APPROACH
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 77
Pre-Visit Phase
Site Visit Phase
impressions.
Data Analysis and Review
model for;
information;
data.
Final Draft Report
Final Report
final report;
discussion of pre-final report.
Post Final Report
discussion for report presentation and clarification.
On site Recap
Approach Details
APPENDIX ASSESSMENT APPROACH
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 78
– Pre-Visit phase start immediately upon receipt of a purchase order or other form of
– Pre-visit phase will consist of information requests and exchanges, email exchanges, phone conversations, online meetings via GoToMeeting, and preliminary data analysis; – Client appoints an individual with authority and knowledge of the custodial operation to serve as primary point of contact for the assessment. It is critical for Client to have a single individual who would ensure all Client support to the project is coordinated; – Hold online kickoff meeting with appropriate people to ensure the assessment
– Provide Client with information request, including information templates, list of documents, and information needed prior to the site visit; – Client provides requested documents and information prior to the visit; – Client provides all data and information electronically (Excel spreadsheet is preferred format for data and numeric; Word or PDF is fine for narrative information); – Client and consultant jointly develop site visit schedule to include interviews, data review, and building inspections and other tours.
APPENDIX ASSESSMENT APPROACH
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 79
– Appropriate Client Facilities Department project team personnel meet with me via online meeting to review Client provided documents, information, and data and to finalize site visit schedule.
– Visit Client for four to five days to conduct interviews, inspect facilities, and collect additional documents, data, and information as needed; – Provide a debrief of preliminary impressions of visit prior to my departure.
– Analyze all data and information collected in all previous project phases; – Develop findings and recommendations, and share draft products with Client for comment; – Hold online distance meetings as necessary (up to 4 hours as part of fixed fee) for clarification of Client provided information and Client review comments; – Deliver the final draft report for Client comments prior finalizing the report. The final draft can generally be submitted within three weeks of returning from the site visit.
– Deliver one electronic PDF version and three hard copies of final report; – Participate in up to three (3) hours (as part of the fixed price) of discussion of the final report via
– Generally deliver the draft report within a week after receiving client’s final comments on the final draft.
SUPPORTING SLIDES APPA FPI COHORT PROFILE
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 80
Institution Funding Carnegie Class APPA Region Enrollm ent Range Aux Svcs Bldg Age Range Cust Service Level Grnds Service Level Maint Service Level
Total Bldg GSF-GSM Maintained No. Bldgs Owned Adj Avg Age Mission Critical Bldgs Owned Total Acres/ Hectares Maint Current Replmt Value
CRV/GSF
New Mexico St Univ Public Research High RMA 12,000-19,9 Inc 30-39 2.00 2.00 3.00 3,220,411 214 35.5 425 $1,300,000,000 $403.68 Appalachian St Univ Public Masters SRAPPA 12,000-19,9 Exc 30-39 3.00 3.00 3.00 3,073,510 92 30.3 314 $1,049,383,026 $341.43 Iowa St Univ Public Research Very High MAPPA 20,000+ Exc 6,835,666 230 1,984 $3,600,911,150 $526.78 Univ Cal/Irvine Public Research Very High PCAPPA 20,000+ Exc 20-29 4.00 3.00 4.00 5,281,130 144 29.0 174 $4,721,738,000 $894.08 Univ Cal/Santa Cruz Public Research Very High PCAPPA 12,000-19,9 Exc 40-49 3.00 3,002,921 238 40.0 2,020 $1,916,792,025 $638.31 Univ Colorado/Boulder Public Research Very High RMA 20,000+ Exc 40-49 4.00 2.00 3.00 4,932,953 361 47.8 265 $3,234,924,162 $655.78 Univ Colorado/Denver Public Research High RMA 12,000-19,9 Exc 20-29 2.00 2.00 2.00 3,760,109 34 26.0 128 $1,568,401,357 $417.12 Univ Idaho Public Research High RMA 5,000-11,99 Exc 40-49 3.00 3.00 3.00 2,830,777 92 40.0 412 $947,354,716 $334.66 Univ No Carolina/Greensboro Public Research High SRAPPA 12,000-19,9 Exc 30-39 3.00 2.00 3.00 3,273,905 76 37.7 266 $1,773,311,210 $541.65 Univ No Dakota Public Research High CAPPA 12,000-19,9 Exc 40-49 3.00 3.00 3.00 3,652,200 80 48.0 349 $1,172,011,033 $320.91 Univ Oregon Public Research Very High PCAPPA 20,000+ Exc 30-39 2.00 3.00 3.00 3,857,650 134 32.0 295 $2,893,599,820 $750.09 Univ So Alabama Public Research High SRAPPA 12,000-19,9 Exc 40-49 2.00 1.00 2.00 3,899,908 143 40.0 1,250 $736,320,850 $188.80 Wright St Univ Public Doc/Research MAPPA 12,000-19,9 Exc 20-29 2.00 3.00 2.00 3,345,782 79 23.0 235 $1,542,456,500 $461.02
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 81
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS FS GRAND TOTAL FTE REQUIREMENT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 82
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R1 FS GRAND TOTAL FTE REQUIREMENT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 83
Subtotal 126.56 13.75 5.29 145.60 Seq Building Routine FTE Project FTE Seasonal Total FTE 1 I&G Spaces Cleaned @ APPA Level-3 97.07 10.79 107.86 2 Auxiliaries Spaces @ APPA Level-2 12.48 1.18 13.66 3 Housing Common Areas @ APPA Level-2 7.55 0.85 8.40 4 Athletics Spaces @ APPA Level-2 9.46 0.93 10.39 5 Dorms and Apartment Make Ready 3.82 3.82 6 House Make Ready 1.18 1.18 7 Summer Conference Support 0.30 0.30
FS Grand Total FTE Requirement for Housing, Athletics and Auxiliaries Cleaned at APPA Level-2 and I&G Cleaned at APPA Level-3
FTEs for cleaning worker only. Management, Supervisory and additional duties FTEs not included in this table.
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS I&G SPACES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 84
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R2 I&G SPACES FTE REQUIREMENT BY SPACE CATEGORY BY LEVELS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 85
2,270,444 8,763 259.09 15,516 146.33 21,140 107.40 29,740 76.34 39,826 57.01 Seq Space Category Total Cleanable
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust. 1 Research Lab without Hazardous Waste 404,449 6,364 63.55 9,630 42.00 12,470 32.43 22,366 18.08 71,254 5.68 2 Washroom 68,060 2,050 33.20 2,821 24.13 2,821 24.13 2,821 24.13 2,821 24.13 3 Office with Carpet Floor 609,254 10,862 56.09 20,354 29.93 37,153 16.40 60,131 10.13 94,617 6.44 4 Classroom With Carpet Floor 221,366 10,942 20.23 23,556 9.40 26,299 8.42 36,350 6.09 38,554 5.74 5 Classroom With Hard Floor 88,223 8,133 10.85 15,207 5.80 25,397 3.47 34,530 2.56 38,556 2.29 6 Public (Circulation) with Carpet Floor 390,915 19,909 19.64 49,747 7.86 70,647 5.53 116,520 3.36 130,637 2.99 7 Public (Circulation) with Hard Floor 132,804 7,432 17.87 20,483 6.48 31,024 4.28 38,256 3.47 40,315 3.29 8 Office with Hard Floor 72,222 7,534 9.59 13,634 5.30 24,842 2.91 32,977 2.19 43,257 1.67 9 Library with Hard Floor 47,074 9,396 5.01 17,683 2.66 20,059 2.35 39,990 1.18 46,679 1.01 10 Utility 9,219 3,634 2.54 4,773 1.93 8,492 1.09 15,193 0.61 39,967 0.23 11 Patient Treatment Area --Hard Floor 4,563 2,675 1.71 2,675 1.71 2,675 1.71 2,675 1.71 2,675 1.71 12 Auditorium Seating & Foyer 37,864 5,013 7.55 12,091 3.13 28,088 1.35 60,711 0.62 364,977 0.10 13 Library with Carpet 101,123 18,635 5.43 40,332 2.51 80,821 1.25 115,451 0.88 135,632 0.75 14 Dormitory Lounge 20,601 5,061 4.07 8,788 2.34 18,557 1.11 45,919 0.45 161,831 0.13 15 Cafeteria with Hard Floor 4,602 10,106 0.46 14,148 0.33 14,148 0.33 14,148 0.33 14,148 0.33 16 Nursing Station --Hard Floor 1,276 5,173 0.25 5,173 0.25 5,173 0.25 5,173 0.25 5,173 0.25 17 Vending 2,485 4,991 0.50 12,151 0.21 18,428 0.14 20,333 0.12 22,336 0.11 18 Entranceway 780 4,053 0.19 6,987 0.11 10,959 0.07 17,837 0.04 28,724 0.03 19 Locker/Changing Room - No Shower 1,122 11,106 0.10 11,308 0.10 11,308 0.10 11,308 0.10 11,308 0.10 20 Gymnasium (Wood Floor) 3,748 15,871 0.24 31,469 0.12 68,526 0.06 208,575 0.02 898,183 0.00 21 Shower Room 203 6,222 0.03 6,222 0.03 6,222 0.03 6,222 0.03 6,222 0.03 22 Custodial Closet 11,186 801,216 0.01 801,216 0.01 801,216 0.01 801,216 0.01 801,216 0.01
I& G Spaces APPA Guidelines Custodial FTE Requirement by Category by Level Report
3/6/2017
FTEs for cleaning worker only. Management, Supervisory and additional duties FTEs not included in this table. Level 4 Level 5 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Subtotal 7,009 2,270,444 97.07 10.79 107.86
Seq Building Number of Rooms CSF Routine FTE Project FTE Total FTE 1 PSL, CLINTON P. ANDERSON HALL - 263 355 112,646 4.51 0.58 5.09 2 SKEEN HALL - 551 214 87,897 4.55 0.41 4.96 3 FOSTER HALL - 34 218 71,701 4.35 0.37 4.72 4 GERALD THOMAS HALL - 244 362 109,152 4.04 0.55 4.59 5 CHEMISTRY BUILDING - 187 204 77,906 4.16 0.39 4.56 6 BRANSON LIBRARY - 278 143 127,820 4.11 0.45 4.55 7 SCIENCE HALL - 391 317 86,234 3.48 0.39 3.86 8 JETT HALL - 189 178 72,215 3.38 0.38 3.76 9 ED AND HAROLD FOREMAN ENGINEERING COMPLEX - 541 168 66,733 3.16 0.30 3.46 10 MILTON HALL - 83 252 77,137 3.00 0.42 3.43 11 BRELAND HALL - 184 256 71,022 2.73 0.40 3.13 12 O'DONNELL HALL - 287 240 71,447 2.53 0.31 2.84 13 KNOX HALL - 368 203 55,063 2.39 0.27 2.65 14 GARDINER HALL - 188 140 48,365 2.29 0.24 2.54 15 ENGINEERING COMPLEX I - 363 83 37,737 2.18 0.20 2.38 16 STUDENT HEALTH CENTER - 261 87 16,005 2.04 0.19 2.23 17 REGENTS ROW - 248 266 39,160 1.97 0.22 2.19 18 MUSIC BUILDING - 389 84 42,755 1.96 0.18 2.14 19 ZUHL LIBRARY - 461 97 81,275 1.81 0.24 2.04 20 HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BUILDING - 590 201 46,970 1.79 0.20 1.98 21 THOMAS & BROWN HALL - 301 107 40,340 1.78 0.19 1.97 22 CENTER FOR THE ARTS - 631 103 41,601 1.77 0.16 1.92 23 HARDMAN AND JACOBS UNDERGRADUATE LEARNING CENTER - 323 78 41,154 1.70 0.16 1.87 24 BUSINESS COMPLEX BUILDING - 386 120 44,311 1.59 0.19 1.78 25 JOHN WHITLOCK HERNANDEZ HALL - 397 67 34,424 1.61 0.16 1.77 26 DAN W. WILLIAMS HALL - 60 51 27,809 1.45 0.15 1.60 27 GODDARD HALL - 10 85 22,172 1.27 0.12 1.39 28 JORNADA USDA EXP. RANGE HQ (WOOTON HALL) - 585 89 24,640 1.14 0.12 1.26 29 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER - 338 94 38,813 1.04 0.19 1.24 30 PETE V. DOMENICI HALL - 249 110 33,268 1.06 0.13 1.19
Custodial Areas and Scheduling - Micro Staffing Report
By Building
FTEs for cleaning worker only. Management, Supervisory and additional duties FTEs not included in this table. 92 Total Buildings - 2,270,444 CSF (21,050 CSF per FTE)
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R3 I&G SPACES FTES AND COST OF CLEANING FOR APPA LEVEL-3 BY BUILDING
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 86
Routine FTEs Project FTEs Total FTEs
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R3 (CONTINUED) I&G SPACES FTES AND COST OF CLEANING FOR APPA LEVEL-3 BY BUILDING (CONTINUED)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 87
Seq Building Number of Rooms CSF Routine FTE Project FTE Total FTE 61 ACADEMIC RESEARCH C - 412C 36 8,567 0.28 0.04 0.32 62 ACADEMIC RESEARCH A - 412A 38 8,130 0.27 0.04 0.31 63 THEATRE SCENE SHOP - 385 8 6,394 0.27 0.03 0.29 64 TENNIS CENTER - 601 10 2,485 0.27 0.01 0.28 65 FOOD SAFETY LABORATORY - 426 13 3,458 0.25 0.02 0.27 66 EQUINE EDUCATION CENTER - 588 12 3,888 0.25 0.01 0.25 67 FIRE STATION - 267 33 4,601 0.22 0.02 0.24 68 ALUMNI & VISITORS CENTER - 44 16 5,164 0.20 0.03 0.23 69 PRESIDENT'S RESIDENCE - 366 19 4,089 0.20 0.02 0.22 70 GENESIS CENTER B - 394B 30 7,913 0.19 0.03 0.21 71 FS OFFICE - 221 27 5,585 0.17 0.03 0.21 72 STUCKY HALL - 282 17 4,384 0.17 0.02 0.20 73 PHOTOVOLTAIC CENTER - 369 12 2,638 0.16 0.01 0.17 74 GENESIS CENTER OFFICE - 394D 7 2,157 0.16 0.01 0.17 75 ANIMAL CARE FACILITY - 347 19 2,906 0.16 0.01 0.16 76 NASON HOUSE - 36 20 2,566 0.15 0.01 0.16 77 STUD BARN - 642 7 5,442 0.13 0.03 0.16 78 PASSIVE SOLAR - 348 14 2,511 0.10 0.01 0.11 79 LIVESTOCK OFFICE - 166 6 1,609 0.10 0.01 0.11 80 SUGERMAN SPACE GRANT BUILDING - 212 12 1,973 0.09 0.01 0.10 81 O'LOUGHLIN HOUSE - 179 12 1,421 0.09 0.01 0.09 82 HORT FARM OFFICE & LABS - 158 8 4,504 0.08 0.01 0.09 83 URBAN ENTOMOLOGY RESEARCH CENTER - 246 10 1,203 0.08 0.01 0.09 84 METABOLISM & PHYSIOLOGY LAB - 372 9 5,353 0.08 0.00 0.09 85 FS CENTRAL HEATING PLANT - 269 8 1,946 0.07 0.01 0.08 86 HORT FARM OFFICE SEED ROOM - 157 3 895 0.06 0.01 0.06 87 LIVESTOCK JUDGING PAVILION - 195 3 3,484 0.05 0.00 0.05 88 PE RESTROOMS/TRACK FIELD - 314 2 86 0.03 0.00 0.03 89 BEEF OFFICE - 241 4 1,291 0.02 0.00 0.02 90 LEYENDECKER PSC SUPT RESIDENCE - 308 12 1,588 0.02 0.00 0.02 91 ANIMAL SCIENCE SHOP - 375 1 2,842 0.00 0.00
15 3,979 0.00 0.00
Seq Building Number of Rooms CSF Routine FTE Project FTE Total FTE 61 THEATRE SCENE SHOP - 385 8 6,394 0.27 0.03 0.29 62 TENNIS CENTER - 601 10 2,485 0.27 0.01 0.28 63 FOOD SAFETY LABORATORY - 426 13 3,458 0.25 0.02 0.27 64 EQUINE EDUCATION CENTER - 588 12 3,888 0.25 0.01 0.25 65 FIRE STATION - 267 33 4,601 0.22 0.02 0.24 66 ALUMNI & VISITORS CENTER - 44 16 5,164 0.20 0.03 0.23 67 PRESIDENT'S RESIDENCE - 366 19 4,089 0.20 0.02 0.22 68 GENESIS CENTER B - 394B 30 7,913 0.19 0.03 0.21 69 FS OFFICE - 221 27 5,585 0.17 0.03 0.21 70 STUCKY HALL - 282 17 4,384 0.17 0.02 0.20 71 PHOTOVOLTAIC CENTER - 369 12 2,638 0.16 0.01 0.17 72 GENESIS CENTER OFFICE - 394D 7 2,157 0.16 0.01 0.17 73 ANIMAL CARE FACILITY - 347 19 2,906 0.16 0.01 0.16 74 NASON HOUSE - 36 20 2,566 0.15 0.01 0.16 75 STUD BARN - 642 7 5,442 0.13 0.03 0.16 76 PASSIVE SOLAR - 348 14 2,511 0.10 0.01 0.11 77 LIVESTOCK OFFICE - 166 6 1,609 0.10 0.01 0.11 78 SUGERMAN SPACE GRANT BUILDING - 212 12 1,973 0.09 0.01 0.10 79 O'LOUGHLIN HOUSE - 179 12 1,421 0.09 0.01 0.09 80 HORT FARM OFFICE & LABS - 158 8 4,504 0.08 0.01 0.09 81 URBAN ENTOMOLOGY RESEARCH CENTER - 246 10 1,203 0.08 0.01 0.09 82 METABOLISM & PHYSIOLOGY LAB - 372 9 5,353 0.08 0.00 0.09 83 FS CENTRAL HEATING PLANT - 269 8 1,946 0.07 0.01 0.08 84 HORT FARM OFFICE SEED ROOM - 157 3 895 0.06 0.01 0.06 85 LIVESTOCK JUDGING PAVILION - 195 3 3,484 0.05 0.00 0.05 86 BEEF OFFICE - 241 4 1,291 0.02 0.00 0.02 87 LEYENDECKER PSC SUPT RESIDENCE - 308 12 1,588 0.02 0.00 0.02 88 ANIMAL SCIENCE SHOP - 375 1 2,842 0.00 0.00
15 3,979 0.00 0.00
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R3 (CONTINUED) HOUSING SPACES FTES AND COST OF CLEANING FOR APPA LEVEL-3 BY BUILDING (CONTINUED)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 88
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS HOUSING SPACES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 89
1,097,668 13.69 $405,852 $40,585 $20,293 $466,723
Row Building Number
Cleanable SF (CSF) FTE Direct Labor Cost Supply Cost Capital Cost Total Cost 1 GARCIA RESIDENCE HALL - 275 586 182,007 3.74 $110,913 $11,091 $5,546 $127,549 2 CHAMISA VILLAGE - 645 1,338 128,001 1.63 $48,305 $4,830 $2,415 $55,548 3 CHAMISA VILLAGE - 605 1,028 98,667 1.55 $46,007 $4,601 $2,300 $52,907 4 COLE VILLAGE - 270 241 165,567 0.97 $28,660 $2,866 $1,433 $32,959 5 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 80 84 21,320 0.83 $24,729 $2,473 $1,236 $28,439 6 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 79 61 13,975 0.73 $21,515 $2,152 $1,076 $24,742 7 AGGIE EXPRESS CONVENIENCE STORE & LAUNDRY - 471 13 6,252 0.63 $18,823 $1,882 $941 $21,647 8 SUTHERLAND VILLAGE - 206 199 121,788 0.63 $18,559 $1,856 $928 $21,343 9 TOM FORT VILLAGE - 214 100 107,100 0.55 $16,321 $1,632 $816 $18,769 10 PINON HALL - 604 190 49,028 0.38 $11,251 $1,125 $563 $12,939 11 GREEK COMPLEX - 271 27 6,418 0.36 $10,783 $1,078 $539 $12,400 12 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 185 69 13,539 0.32 $9,402 $940 $470 $10,812 13 Summer Conference Support 2 460 0.30 $8,811 $881 $441 $10,133 14 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 387E 18 16,200 0.09 $2,804 $280 $140 $3,225 15 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 387D 63 16,182 0.09 $2,801 $280 $140 $3,221 16 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 387B 96 14,368 0.08 $2,487 $249 $124 $2,860 17 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413F 96 14,368 0.08 $2,487 $249 $124 $2,860 18 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413G 96 14,368 0.08 $2,487 $249 $124 $2,860 19 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413H 96 14,368 0.08 $2,487 $249 $124 $2,860 20 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413J 96 14,368 0.08 $2,487 $249 $124 $2,860 21 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462P 32 8,192 0.05 $1,418 $142 $71 $1,631 22 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526U 32 8,192 0.05 $1,418 $142 $71 $1,631 23 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526S 29 7,433 0.04 $1,287 $129 $64 $1,480 24 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526Q 29 7,433 0.04 $1,287 $129 $64 $1,480 25 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526R 29 7,433 0.04 $1,287 $129 $64 $1,480 26 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526X 29 7,433 0.04 $1,287 $129 $64 $1,480 27 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462M 24 6,254 0.04 $1,083 $108 $54 $1,245 28 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462N 24 6,254 0.04 $1,083 $108 $54 $1,245 29 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526T 24 6,254 0.04 $1,083 $108 $54 $1,245 30 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462V 24 6,254 0.04 $1,083 $108 $54 $1,245 31 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462K 16 4,096 0.02 $709 $71 $35 $815 32 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526W 16 4,096 0.02 $709 $71 $35 $815
Subtotals
Housing Grand Total FTE and Cost (Includes Common Areas, Make Ready, and Summer Conference Support
32 Total Building - 1,097,668 CSF ($0.43 per CSF)
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R4
HOUSING GRAND TOTAL FTE AND COST (INCLUDES COMMON AREAS, MAKE READY, AND SUMMER CONFERENCE SUPPORT)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 90
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R5
HOUSING COMMON SPACES APPA GUIDELINES CUSTODIAL FTE REQUIREMENT BY CATEGORY BY LEVEL REPORT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 91
126,380 8,854 14.3 15,052 8.4 22,191 5.7 31,698 4.0 40,715 3.1 Seq Space Category Total Cleanable
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust. 1 Utility 13,643 3,634 3.754 4,773 2.858 8,492 1.607 15,193 0.898 39,967 0.341 2 Washroom 3,789 2,050 1.848 2,821 1.343 2,821 1.343 2,821 1.343 2,821 1.343 3 Public (Circulation) with Carpet Floor 72,033 19,909 3.618 49,747 1.448 70,647 1.020 116,520 0.618 130,637 0.551 4 Dormitory Lounge 12,213 5,061 2.413 8,788 1.390 18,557 0.658 45,919 0.266 161,831 0.075 5 Classroom With Carpet Floor 10,760 10,942 0.983 23,556 0.457 26,299 0.409 36,350 0.296 38,554 0.279 6 Shower Room 1,730 6,222 0.278 6,222 0.278 6,222 0.278 6,222 0.278 6,222 0.278 7 Office with Carpet Floor 4,758 10,862 0.438 20,354 0.234 37,153 0.128 60,131 0.079 94,617 0.050 8 Vending 2,175 4,991 0.436 12,151 0.179 18,428 0.118 20,333 0.107 22,336 0.097 9 Public (Circulation) with Hard Floor 2,919 7,432 0.393 20,483 0.143 31,024 0.094 38,256 0.076 40,315 0.072 10 Entranceway 313 4,053 0.077 6,987 0.045 10,959 0.029 17,837 0.018 28,724 0.011 11 Classroom With Hard Floor 282 8,133 0.035 15,207 0.019 25,397 0.011 34,530 0.008 38,556 0.007 12 Custodial Closet 1,765 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 Housing Common Spaces Only. Does not include Make Ready work or summer conference support. Level 4 Level 5 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Housing Common Spaces APPA Guidelines Custodial FTE Requirement by Category by Level Report
Subtotal 412 126,380 7.55 0.85 8.40 Seq Building Number
CSF Routine FTE Project FTE Total FTE 1 GARCIA RESIDENCE HALL - 275 136 79,021 2.89 0.40 3.29 2 CHAMISA VILLAGE - 605 81 7,600 1.01 0.10 1.11 3 CHAMISA VILLAGE - 645 81 7,517 0.94 0.10 1.04 4 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 80 38 10,753 0.74 0.06 0.80 5 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 79 28 5,861 0.63 0.06 0.69 6 AGGIE EXPRESS CONVENIENCE STORE & LAUNDRY - 471 13 6,252 0.58 0.06 0.63 7 GREEK COMPLEX - 271 10 3,025 0.30 0.05 0.35 8 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 185 16 3,423 0.30 0.01 0.31 9 PINON HALL - 604 9 2,928 0.15 0.03 0.18 9 Total Buildings - 126,380 CSF (15,054 CSF per FTE) Housing Common Spaces Only. Does not include Make Ready work or summer conference support.
Custodial Areas and Scheduling - Micro Staffing Report By Building
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R6 HOUSING SPACES FTES AND COST OF CLEANING FOR APPA LEVEL-3 BY BUILDING
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 92
Routine FTEs Project FTEs Total FTEs
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R7
HOUSING MAKE READY WORK BY CATEGORY
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 93
− 3.82 FTEs of effort performed May 15 through Aug 1 = 16.5 people; − Require 10+ weeks surge staffing.
741,940 3.82 Seq Space Category Total Cleanable
FTE of Effort 1 APARTMENT Sleep/Study With Washroom {Res Area} 352,957 2.060 3 DORM Sleep/Study With Washroom {Res Area} 164,953 0.718 4 APARTMENT Sleep/Study Without Washroom {Res Area} 102,147 0.483 5 Apartment Living Room {Res Area} 54,964 0.255 6 Apartment Kitchen {Res Area} 26,940 0.244 7 Apartment Bath {Res Area} 22,334 0.035 8 DORM Sleep/Study Without Washroom {Res Area} 14,117 0.013 9 Apartment Closet {Res Area} 3,528 0.010
Dorms and Apartment Make Ready
228,888 1.18 Seq Space Category Total Cleanable
FTE of Effort 2 HOUSE Sleep/Study With Washroom {Res Area} 228,888 1.176
Houses Make Ready
− Time of need varies throughout the year.
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R8 HOUSING MAKE READY BY BUILDING
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 94
Subtotal 4,393 459 1.18 Seq Building Number
Total MTC Total FTE 1 SUTHERLAND VILLAGE - 206 199 244 0.63 2 TOM FORT VILLAGE - 214 100 215 0.55
Housing Houses Make Ready FTEs By Report by Building
30 Total Buildings - 970,828 CSF (194,369 CSF per FTE)
− 4.99 FTEs of effort performed May 15 through Aug 1 = 21.64 people (1,948 minutes/Day x 260 Days/Year)/(60 Days to perform x 390 minutes per day per worker); − Require 10+ weeks surge staffing
Subtotal 4,393 1,489 3.82 Seq Building Number
Total MTC Total FTE 1 COLE VILLAGE - 270 241 377 0.97 2 CHAMISA VILLAGE - 645 1,257 230 0.59 3 GARCIA RESIDENCE HALL - 275 450 176 0.45 4 CHAMISA VILLAGE - 605 947 174 0.45 5 PINON HALL - 604 181 78 0.20 6 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 387E 18 37 0.09 7 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 387D 63 37 0.09 8 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 387B 96 33 0.08 9 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413F 96 33 0.08 10 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413G 96 33 0.08 11 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413H 96 33 0.08 12 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413J 96 33 0.08 13 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462P 32 19 0.05 14 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526U 32 19 0.05 15 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526S 29 17 0.04 16 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526Q 29 17 0.04 17 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526R 29 17 0.04 18 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526X 29 17 0.04 19 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462M 24 14 0.04 20 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462N 24 14 0.04 21 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526T 24 14 0.04 22 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462V 24 14 0.04 23 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 79 33 14 0.04 24 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 80 46 13 0.03 25 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462K 16 9 0.02 26 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526W 16 9 0.02 27 GREEK COMPLEX - 271 17 6 0.02 28 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 185 53 4 0.01 30 Total Buildings - 970,828 CSF (194,369 CSF per FTE)
Housing Dorms and Apts Make Ready FTEs by Building Report
− Time of need varies throughout the year
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R9 HOUSING SUMMER CONFERENCE SUPPORT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 95
− 4.99 FTEs of effort performed May 15 through July 31 = 1.31 people (1,948 minutes/Day x 260 Days/Year)/(59 Days to perform x 390 minutes per day per worker); − Require 10+ weeks surge staffing
115.89 0.297 Seq Space Cat Total MTC Total FTE 1 Summer Conference Room w/o kitchen 93.46 0.240 2 Summer Conference Room w/kitchen 22.43 0.058
Summer Conference Support
460 Total Cleanings
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R10 HOUSING SUMMER CONFERENCE SUPPORT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 96
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS AUXILIARIES SPACES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 97
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R11
AUXILIARIES GRAND TOTAL FTE AND COST
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 98
6 Total Building - 219,138 CSF ($2.13 per CSF)
219,138 13.66 $405,162 $40,516 $20,258 16,038 $2.13 $465,936
Row Building Number
Cleanable SF (CSF) FTE Direct Labor Cost Supply Cost Capital Cost CSF per FTE Cost per CSF Total Cost
1 CORBETT CENTER - 285 291 167,464 9.82 $291,199 $29,120 $14,560 17,053 $2.00 $334,879 2 BARNES & NOBLE NMSU BOOKSTORE - 632 73 37,305 2.68 $79,396 $7,940 $3,970 13,932 $2.45 $91,306 3 FRENGER FOOD COURT - 262 17 5,378 0.47 $14,028 $1,403 $701 11,368 $3.00 $16,132 4 Golf Club House- 597 21 6,564 0.44 $13,002 $1,300 $650 14,970 $2.28 $14,952 5 SPIRITUAL CENTER - 652 7 1,576 0.16 $4,717 $472 $236 9,908 $3.44 $5,424 6 GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE BLDG. - 399 5 851 0.10 $2,821 $282 $141 8,946 $3.81 $3,244
Subtotals
Auxiliaries Grand Total FTEs and Cost For APPA Level 2
216,581 895,114 26.18 76,415 13.66 84,168 10.45 97,457 8.72 138,675 7.88 Seq Space Category Total Cleanable
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust. 1 Office with Carpet Floor 31,594 10,862 2.909 20,354 1.552 37,153 0.850 60,131 0.525 94,617 0.334 2 Public (Circulation) with Hard Floor 597 7,432 0.080 20,483 0.029 31,024 0.019 38,256 0.016 40,315 0.015 3 Research Lab without Hazardous Waste 325 6,364 0.051 9,630 0.034 12,470 0.026 22,366 0.015 71,254 0.005 4 Washroom 6,777 2,050 3.306 2,821 2.402 2,821 2.402 2,821 2.402 2,821 2.402 5 Public (Circulation) with Carpet Floor 51,619 19,909 2.593 49,747 1.038 70,647 0.731 116,520 0.443 130,637 0.395 6 Office with Hard Floor 468 7,534 0.062 13,634 0.034 24,842 0.019 32,977 0.014 43,257 0.011 7 Classroom With Carpet Floor 37,332 10,942 3.412 23,556 1.585 26,299 1.420 36,350 1.027 38,554 0.968 8 Utility 2,160 3,634 0.594 4,773 0.453 8,492 0.254 15,193 0.142 39,967 0.054 9 Vending 22,992 4,991 4.607 12,151 1.892 18,428 1.248 20,333 1.131 22,336 1.029 10 Dormitory Lounge 70 5,061 0.014 8,788 0.008 18,557 0.004 45,919 0.002 11 Cafeteria with Hard Floor 36,752 10,106 3.637 14,148 2.598 14,148 2.598 14,148 2.598 14,148 2.598 12 Auditorium Seating & Foyer 24,631 5,013 4.913 12,091 2.037 28,088 0.877 60,711 0.406 364,977 0.067 14 Custodial Closet 1,264 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 Level 4 Level 5
Additional Description Cell
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R12
AUXILIARIES SPACES APPA GUIDELINES CUSTODIAL FTE REQUIREMENT BY CATEGORY BY LEVEL REPORT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 99
Subtotal 414 219,138 12.48 1.18 13.66 Seq Building Number
CSF Routine FTE Project FTE Total FTE 1 CORBETT CENTER - 285 291 167,464 9.00 0.82 9.82 2 BARNES & NOBLE NMSU BOOKSTORE - 632 73 37,305 2.40 0.28 2.68 3 FRENGER FOOD COURT - 262 17 5,378 0.45 0.03 0.47 4 Golf Club House- 597 21 6,564 0.39 0.04 0.44 5 SPIRITUAL CENTER - 652 7 1,576 0.15 0.01 0.16 6 GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE BLDG. - 399 5 851 0.09 0.01 0.10 FTEs for cleaning worker only. Management, Supervisory and additional duties FTEs not included in 6 Total Buildings - 219,138 CSF (16,038 CSF per FTE)
Custodial Areas and Scheduling - Micro Staffing Report By Building
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R13 AUXILIARIES SPACES FTES AND COST OF CLEANING FOR APPA LEVEL-2 BY BUILDING
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 100
Routine FTEs Project FTEs Total FTEs
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS ATHLETICS SPACES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 101
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R14
ATHLETICS GRAND TOTAL FTE AND COST
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 102
176,400 10.39 $308,031 $30,803 $15,402 16,981 $2.01 $354,236
Row Building Number
Rooms Cleanable SF (CSF) FTE Direct Labor Cost Supply Cost Capital Cost CSF per FTE Cost per CSF Total Cost
1 JAMES B. DELAMATER ACTIVITY CENTER - 321 93 94,664 4.08 $120,889 $12,089 $6,044 23,220 $1.47 $139,022 2 MEMORIAL STADIUM & LOCKER ROOM FIELD HOUSE - 342 48 19,529 2.57 $76,071 $7,607 $3,804 7,612 $4.48 $87,482 3 FULTON ATHLETIC CENTER (STADIUM ANNEX) - 596 108 29,114 1.87 $55,443 $5,544 $2,772 15,571 $2.19 $63,760 4 COCA COLA WEIGHT TRAINING FACILITY - 468 21 16,351 0.82 $24,416 $2,442 $1,221 19,858 $1.72 $28,078 5 FOOTBALL COACHES - 628 27 5,834 0.42 $12,402 $1,240 $620 13,949 $2.44 $14,263 6 NATATORIUM - 251 11 2,997 0.21 $6,325 $632 $316 14,050 $2.43 $7,274 7 FOOTBALL TEAM BUILDING - 612 10 4,166 0.20 $5,959 $596 $298 20,732 $1.64 $6,852 8 BASEBALL OFFICE AND LOCKER ROOM - 552 12 2,006 0.11 $3,288 $329 $164 18,088 $1.89 $3,782 9 SOFTBALL OFFICE AND LOCKER ROOM - 554 8 1,739 0.11 $3,238 $324 $162 15,925 $2.14 $3,724
Athletics Grand Total FTEs and Cost For APPA Level 2
9 Total Building - 176,400 CSF ($2.01 per CSF)
Subtotals
176,400 10,414 16.94 16,981 10.39 21,716 8.12 26,293 6.71 28,762 6.13 Seq Space Category Total Cleanabl e sq. ft.
custodian No of cust.
custodian No of cust.
custodian No
cust.
custodian No
cust.
custodian No of cust. 1 Washroom 8,114 2,050 3.96 2,821 2.88 2,821 2.88 2,821 2.88 2,821 2.88 2 Locker/Changing Room - No Shower 18,332 11,106 1.65 11,308 1.62 11,308 1.62 11,308 1.62 11,308 1.62 3 Gymnasium (Wood Floor) 74,500 15,871 4.69 31,469 2.37 68,526 1.09 208,575 0.36 898,183 0.08 4 Public (Circulation) with Carpet Floor 36,356 19,909 1.83 49,747 0.73 70,647 0.52 116,520 0.31 130,637 0.28 5 Classroom With Carpet Floor 11,094 10,942 1.01 23,556 0.47 26,299 0.42 36,350 0.31 38,554 0.29 6 Office with Carpet Floor 17,091 10,862 1.57 20,354 0.84 37,153 0.46 60,131 0.28 94,617 0.18 7 Patient Treatment Area --Hard Floor 1,165 2,675 0.44 2,675 0.44 2,675 0.44 2,675 0.44 2,675 0.44 8 Utility 1,481 3,634 0.41 4,773 0.31 8,492 0.17 15,193 0.10 39,967 0.04 9 Vending 3,661 4,991 0.73 12,151 0.30 18,428 0.20 20,333 0.18 22,336 0.16 10 Research Lab without Hazardous Waste 1,753 6,364 0.28 9,630 0.18 12,470 0.14 22,366 0.08 71,254 0.03 11 Shower Room 632 6,222 0.10 6,222 0.10 6,222 0.10 6,222 0.10 6,222 0.10 12 Entranceway 586 4,053 0.15 6,987 0.08 10,959 0.05 17,837 0.03 28,724 0.02 13 Office with Hard Floor 823 7,534 0.11 13,634 0.06 24,842 0.03 32,977 0.03 43,257 0.02 14 Library with Carpet 231 18,635 0.01 40,332 0.01 80,821 0.00 115,451 0.00 135,632 0.00 15 Custodial Closet 581 801,216 0.00 801,216 0.00 801,216 0.00 801,216 0.00 801,216 0.00 16 Custodial Closet 581 801,216 0.00 801,216 0.00 801,216 0.00 801,216 0.00 801,216 0.00
Athletics Spaces APPA Guidelines Custodial FTE Requirement by Category by Level Report
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R15
ATHLETICS SPACES APPA GUIDELINES CUSTODIAL FTE REQUIREMENT BY CATEGORY BY LEVEL REPORT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 103
CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R16 ATHLETICS SPACES FTES AND COST OF CLEANING FOR APPA LEVEL-2 BY BUILDING
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 104
Subtotal 338 176,400 9.46 0.93 10.39 Seq Building Number
CSF Routine FTE Project FTE Total FTE 1 JAMES B. DELAMATER ACTIVITY CENTER - 321 93 94,664 3.58 0.50 4.08 2 MEMORIAL STADIUM & LOCKER ROOM FIELD HOUSE - 342 48 19,529 2.46 0.10 2.57 3 FULTON ATHLETIC CENTER (STADIUM ANNEX) - 596 108 29,114 1.72 0.15 1.87 4 COCA COLA WEIGHT TRAINING FACILITY - 468 21 16,351 0.73 0.09 0.82 5 FOOTBALL COACHES - 628 27 5,834 0.38 0.04 0.42 6 NATATORIUM - 251 11 2,997 0.20 0.01 0.21 7 FOOTBALL TEAM BUILDING - 612 10 4,166 0.19 0.01 0.20 8 BASEBALL OFFICE AND LOCKER ROOM - 552 12 2,006 0.10 0.01 0.11 9 SOFTBALL OFFICE AND LOCKER ROOM - 554 8 1,739 0.10 0.01 0.11
Custodial Areas and Scheduling - Micro Staffing Report By Building
9 Total Buildings - 176,400 CSF (16,981 CSF per FTE) FTEs for cleaning worker only. Management, Supervisory and additional duties FTEs not included in this table.
Total FTEs Project FTEs Routine FTEs
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 105
SUPPORTING SLIDES
NMSU CURRENT IN-HOUSE FTES REQUIREMENT VS APPA CLEANING LEVELS – ALL SPACES TREATED EQUALLY
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 106
SUPPORTING SLIDES
NMSU CURRENT IN-HOUSE FTES REQUIREMENT VS APPA CLEANING LEVELS – SLA SPACES CLEANED AT APPA LEVEL-2
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 107
SUPPORTING SLIDES CURRENT CLEANING PERFORMANCE STATUS – BUDGET REQUIREMENT
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 108
SUPPORTING SLIDES NMSU CURRENT IN-HOUSE CLEANING WORKER FTES VS APPA CLEANING LEVELS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 109
SUPPORTING SLIDES NMSU CURRENT IN-HOUSE CLEANING WORKER FTES VS APPA CLEANING LEVELS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 110
PCLS-Title-Grade Responders Avg Hourly Rate Cleaning Workers Responders Composit e Rate Custod Supt/ Mgr 86.0 $33.18 Custod Supvr/ Fore 83.0 $20.77 Custod Crew/Team Ldr* 72.0 $16.13 Custod/ Hsekeeper 99.0 $13.13 Othr Custod Positions 53.0 $15.76
171.0 $14.39
SUPPORTING SLIDES NMSU CURRENT IN-HOUSE CLEANING WORKER FTES VS APPA CLEANING LEVELS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 111
SUPPORTING SLIDES NMSU CURRENT IN-HOUSE CLEANING WORKER FTES VS APPA CLEANING LEVELS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 112
Cleaning Level FTEs APPA Level-1 296.2 APPA Level-2 183.4 APPA Level-3 144.5 APPA Level 4 113.4 NMSU (current) 113.5 APPA Level-5 94.1 NMSU Current In-House Cleaning Worker FTEs Vs APPA Cleaning Levels
SUPPORTING SLIDES NMSU CUSTODIAL ORGANIZATION TOTAL IN-HOUSE FTES VS APPA GUIDELINES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 113
Cleaning Level FTEs APPA Level-1 304.0 APPA Level-2 191.2 APPA Level-3 152.3 NMSU (current) 123.5 APPA Level-4 121.2 NMSU (Available) 118.9 APPA Level-5 101.9 NMSU Current Total In-House FTEs Vs In- House Requirement
SUPPORTING SLIDES NMSU CUSTODIAL ORGANIZATION TOTAL IN-HOUSE FTES VS APPA GUIDELINES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 114
Cleaning Level Budget APPA Level-1 $9,692,308 APPA Level-2 $6,386,057 APPA Level-3 $5,244,585 NMSU (current) $4,247,824 APPA Level-4 $4,185,428 APPA Level-5 $3,526,269 NMSU Current Total Budget Vs APPA Cleaning Levels
SUPPORTING SLIDES CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 115 Manager Supervisor (198682)
17 - Custodial Workers 1 - Lead(s)
Supervisor (198875)
25 - Custodial Workers 1 - Lead(s)
Supervisor (198442)
23 - Custodial Workers 2 - Lead(s)
Supervisor (198517)
18 - Custodial Workers 1 - Lead(s)
Supervisor (198879)
10 - Custodial Workers 1 - Lead(s)
Supervisor (719312)
18 - Custodial Workers 1 - Leads()
SUPPORTING SLIDES CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 116 Manager Supervisor Crew Leader
Custodial Workers Custodial Worker, Sr
Crew Leader
Custodial Workers Custodial Worker, Sr
Crew Leader
Custodial Workers Custodial Worker, Sr
Supervisor Supervisor Training Administrative Support Quality Assurance
SUPPORTING SLIDES NMSU CUSTODIAL PERSONNEL FTES AS REPORTED IN THE FY 14-15 APPA FPI
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 117
Institution Custod Supt/ Mgr FTE Custod Supvr/ Fore FTE Custod Crew/Tea m Ldr FTE Custod Hsekeeper FTE
SUPPORTING SLIDES WORKERS-TO-SUPERVISOR/LEAD RATIO (FY 14-15 FPI DATA)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 118
SUPPORTING SLIDES DIRECT REPORTS-TO-SUPERVISOR RATIO (FY 14-15 FPI DATA)
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 119
SUPPORTING SLIDES STAFF & CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS – INFORMAL SURVEY SCORES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 120
Participant Group Communication Timeliness Complaint Handling Responsiveness Access Quality Competence Customer Service Ease of Doing Business Overall Cleanliness Participant Group Average
FS Management 4.33 5.67 5.33 7.33 8.00 6.33 6.33 6.00 5.33 7.33
6.20
FS Supervisors 9.00 6.50 9.00 9.00 8.50 8.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 8.00
8.40
Team 1 8.00 6.60 7.60 9.00 9.40 7.20 9.20 8.40 9.60 8.00
8.30
Team 3 8.08 6.69 8.92 9.54 10.00 9.31 9.92 9.08 8.92 6.46
8.69
Team 5 4.67 8.50 9.00 9.58 9.17 8.17 7.08 8.83 7.67 6.42
7.91
Team 6 5.27 8.64 9.36 9.64 6.36 8.64 8.09 9.18 8.55 8.27
8.20
Customer Focus Group 1 6.25 7.50 9.00 9.25 9.25 6.75 8.00 9.25 9.50 6.25
8.10
Customer Focus Group 2 2.60 5.00 6.80 5.40 4.60 5.40 4.20 4.60 4.80 6.00
4.94
Aux Services 6.50 7.00 9.00 8.50 7.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 7.00
7.70
Athletics 3.17 3.67 4.33 4.67 6.33 4.67 7.50 6.17 6.67 7.00
5.42
Housing 6.00 3.00 7.50 6.00 6.50 4.50 3.50 5.50 4.00 4.00
5.05 Averages 5.86 6.69 8.06 8.42 7.97 7.48 7.78 8.05 7.94 6.97 7.52
Fac & Serv 6.42 7.50 8.69 9.33 8.65 8.35 8.42 8.69 8.38 7.21
8.16
Customer 4.32 5.11 6.79 6.37 6.58 5.53 6.26 6.63 6.74 6.26
6.06
Perception Gap 2.10 2.39 1.90 2.96 2.07 2.83 2.15 2.06 1.64 0.95
2.10
Service Perceptions
SUPPORTING SLIDES STAFF & CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS – INFORMAL SURVEY SCORES
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 121
6.20 8.40 8.30 8.69 7.91 8.20 8.10 4.94 7.70 5.42 5.05 7.17
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 FS Management (3) FS Supervisors (4) Team 1 (5) Team 3 (13) Team 5 (12) Team 6 (11) Customer Focus Group 1 (4) Customer Focus Group 2 (5) Aux Services (2) Athletics (6) Housing (2) Partiocipant Score
Average Scores by Participant Group
Participant Group Average Overall Average
2 1
3
2 1 3
ASSESSMENT RESULTS ADDITIONAL PERCEPTION GAP ANALYSIS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 122 1 of 5, Back to main slide
ASSESSMENT RESULTS ADDITIONAL PERCEPTION GAP ANALYSIS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 123
2 1 3
2 of 5, Back to main slide
ASSESSMENT RESULTS ADDITIONAL PERCEPTION GAP ANALYSIS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 124
2 1 3
3 of 5, Back to main slide
ASSESSMENT RESULTS ADDITIONAL PERCEPTION GAP ANALYSIS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 125
1 2 3
4 of 5, Back to main slide
ASSESSMENT RESULTS ADDITIONAL PERCEPTION GAP ANALYSIS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 126
2 1 3
Last, Back to main slide
SUPPORTING SLIDES FALL 2015FACILITIES AND SERVICES CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS
Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only 127 Approximately 70% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall quality of custodial services, lower than the 78% reporting satisfaction in Fall 2014. At that time, 43% of respondents were very satisfied with the overall quality of custodial services, while in Fall 2015, only 35% report being very satisfied. However, most respondents (62%) continue to indicate they are very satisfied with the courtesy of the custodial staff (Table 4). Although nearly 75% of the Fall 2014 respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with the frequency of custodial services, only 61% of the Fall 2015 respondents reported such satisfaction. Frequency was of concern to roughly one out of every five respondents. Over 60% of respondents cited satisfaction with the cleanliness of offices and classrooms; however, this area reported the highest level of dissatisfaction (20% dissatisfied to very dissatisfied). Cleanliness of restrooms was another area of concern with 12% of respondents dissatisfied with restroom cleanliness and 4% very dissatisfied. Overall, respondents were less satisfied across all areas this year compared to last year, possibly implying that custodial staff are getting stretched too thinly across their areas.