N MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY · Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion...

NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY

CUSTODIAL SERVICES MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT

FINAL REPORTBY

HUNTERCONSULTING AND TRAINING(3-14-2017)

Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion Purposes Only

1

NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY CUSTODIAL SERVICES MANAGEMENTASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT CONTENT


2

BACKGROUND

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY CUSTODIAL SERVICES MANAGEMENTASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT CONTENT


3

APPENDIX

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS

SUPPORTING SLIDES

QUESTIONS

BACKGROUND


4

BACKGROUND

• New Mexico State University (NMSU) Facilities and Services Department (FS) provides custodial services on a scheduled basis to 139 administrative, academic, and student housing buildings totaling approximately 3.8 million Usable Square Feet. The services are delivered by an in-house staff in the FS Custodial Services (CS) work unit.

• Hunter Consulting and Training conducted a custodial services management 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.


5

BACKGROUND

THE CRITICAL DOZEN QUESTIONS

The critical dozen questions custodial organizations must be able to answer:


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?

10. Are we using industry-accepted standards and current Best Practices in our operations?

11. How does our organization/operations compare to other similar institutions?

12. What can we do to enhance service and reduce cost of our cleaning operation?

“We don’t know” is not an acceptable answer!

BACKGROUND

• Primary Objectives:

– 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.

• Feedback from small groups, individual interviews, and random contact with NMSU campus community:

– From FS Cleaning Workers and Supervisors:


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.

o Training

o Process, Procedures, Cleaning Tasks, Frequencies and Schedules

o Routine Vs. Project Concept

o Supplies

o Equipment

o Audit/Inspection Program

o Vacant Positions, Hiring Process

o Attendance

BACKGROUND

• Feedback from small groups, individual interviews, and random contact with NMSU campus community (continued):

– From Campus Stakeholders, FS Management/Supervisor, and FS Workers:


8

o Communication

o Timeliness

o Complaint Handling

o Responsiveness

o Access

o Qualityo Competenceo Customer Serviceo Ease of Doing Businesso Overall Cleanliness

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


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:

• Number of front-line workers available to perform work;

• Effective recruitment and hiring;

• Standardization and Best Practices;

• Formal written processes and procedures;

• Administrative support to custodial services leadership;

• Technology support;

• Data and information analysis to support operational decisions;

• Personnel development, skills, supervisory, and leadership training and professional development;

• Personnel evaluation, and reward and recognition program;

• Customer communications and outreach.


10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYDEPARTMENTAL 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:

• Cleanable Square Feet Inventory is already under development – a key and essential element of a successful cleaning organization;

• Standard task lists for various space types exists (Core Custodial Functions);

• Standard supplies, material, and equipment are in use;

• Benchmarking with Cohorts recognized as a value, and FS is an APPA FPI survey participant;

• Safety and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) programs recognized as important, and practices are in place to ensure employees are aware of both;

• Workloading against a standard (APPA) is recognized as important, and knowledge of the standard exists at the management level;

• Cleanliness based on a standard (APPA) is recognized as important, and there is an attempt to conduct inspections based on such standards;

• Fringe benefits for custodial employees are considered good by the CS employees;

• Custodial worker personnel turnover is low;

• Management and supervisory team are motivated and capable of transforming the organization.


11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYCURRENT CLEANING PERFORMANCE STATUS – FTE REQUIREMENT

NMSU Current Cleaning Status – FTE Requirement:• Consultant estimates CS is performing between APPA

Levels 3.2 and 3.4 based on buildings tours;

• The campus is generally clean, but results are inconsistent and not meeting campus community expectations;

• Of the 123.5 Authorized FTEs1, 37.1 FTEs are required to clean Auxiliaries, Housing, and Athletics spaces at APPA Level-2 in accordance with Services Level Agreements;


12

• The remaining 88.2 FTEs are 28.8 FTEs short of what is needed to clean the I&G spaces at APPA Level-3;

• Historical Available FTEs2 have been less than Authorized FTEs due to vacancies pushing available staffing to slightly below APPA Level-4;

• While the custodial organization is understaffed, staffing is not the only reason for the inconsistent results and the campus community being less than fully satisfied with the cleaning service;

• Even with staffing being below desired levels, CS could achieve better results by adopting Best Practices, better equipping the staff, and providing better training and professional development to its staff;

• For this assessment, estimated required FTEs for APPA Levels are based on Usable Square Feet contained in 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):• FS has Service Level Agreements (SLA) with Auxiliaries,

Housing, and Athletics requiring APPA Level-2 service which is provided on a recharged basis;

• There is no official designation of the desired level of cleanliness for the I&G spaces;

• The graph indicates the number of FTEs required to service the SLA’s at APPA Level-2 while cleaning the rest of the campus at the indicated APPA Level;


13


• For the sake of illustration, if the campus adapts APPA Level-3 as its target for I&G spaces while being 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;

• The breakout for the above scheme would be 37.1 FTEs for SLA spaces at APPA Level-2 and 115.2 FTEs for I&G spaces at APPA Level-3

• While CS is understaffed based on FTE requirement for an average organization, staffing is not the only reason for the inconsistent results.

• Required FTEs are based on average organizations – high-performing organizations would require fewer FTEs (possibly 10%-20% less).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CURRENT CLEANING PERFORMANCE STATUS – BUDGET REQUIREMENT

NMSU Current Cleaning Status – Budget Requirement:• FS has Service Level Agreements (SLA) with

Auxiliaries, Housing, and Athletics requiring APPA Level-2 service which is provided on a recharged basis;

• There is no official designation of the desired level of cleanliness for the I&G spaces;

• The graph indicates the budget required to service the SLA’s at APPA Level-2 while cleaning the rest of the campus at the indicated APPA Level;


14


• The estimated budget requirement is based on the estimated FTEs, the average wage and fringe benefit rate of FS current custodial workforce, and assuming that the cost of supplies would be equal to 10% of the labor cost, and the cost of equipment will be 5% of the labor cost;

• As indicated in the above graph, CS is funded to achieve APPA Level-4;

• To compensate for the lack of staff, CS must transform itself into a modern-day high-performing workforce 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.


15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BOTTOM LINE


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:

• 191 FTEs/$6.39M to clean all spaces at APPA Level-21;

• 153 FTEs/$5.26M to clean SLA spaces at APPA Level-2 and I&G spaces at APPA Level-3;

• 122 FTEs/$4.21M to clean SLA spaces at APPA Level-2 and I&G spaces at APPA Level-4;

• Estimate is based on the current Usable Square Feet Inventory without validation of whether the space is in fact cleanable space;

• FTEs and budget include non-cleaning additional duties, supervision, housing make ready, and summer conference support;

• Any change in assigned space to clean will require a change in the estimated FTEs and budget requirement;

FTEs in Current Organization Chart and FY 15-16 Final Budget Expenditures:• 123 FTEs/$4.23M to clean the campus including non-cleaning additional duties, and

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.

http://www.appa.org/

ASSESSMENT RESULTS


17

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

STAFF & CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS – INFORMAL SURVEY SCORES


18

ASSESSMENT RESULTS



19

Staff & Customer Perceptions:• Consultant conducted individual interviews and held focus groups discussions with FS staff

and customers to gather information on staff & customer perceptions;

• Discussion was centered around 10 attributes: Communication, Timeliness; Responsive, Complaint Handling; Access; Quality, Competence, Customer Service, Ease of Doing Business, and Overall Cleanliness;

• Participants were asked to score the attributes from 1 (very bad) to 10 (very good);

• A graphical representation of the scores are presented in the following slides;

• While there were some satisfied customers in the customer focus group, most customer focus group participants expressed dissatisfaction with the custodial services they receive;

• Customer focus group participants scored Communication (4.32) the lowest among the attributes, Timeliness the next lowest (5.11) and then Quality (5.53);

• A gap analysis of the difference in perception between different groups follows:

– The FS group average is much higher than the customer average with the largest gap inperception occurring for Responsiveness, Quality, and Timeliness – implying that FS as anorganization has an opportunity to enhance its customer awareness;

– 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



20

Staff & Customer Perceptions (continued):

• The smaller gap between FS management and the customer is a good sign that FS management recognizes the opportunity to enhance services;

• FS scored Overall Cleanliness 7.21 compared to the FS Management score of 7.33 and the 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;

• One customer group had an average score of 8.1, but scored overall cleanliness 6.25;

• Another customer group had an average score of 4.94, but scored overall cleanliness 6.00;

• In summary, FS Custodial Service has an overall customer approval rating of 65.2% and the cleanliness results it achieves has a customer approval rating of 61.3%;

• The results of the customer focus groups are consistent with the results the NMSU Fall 2015 Facilities and Services Customer Satisfaction Survey expressed in a different way;

• The raw scores are important since they provide insight into the perception of the groups;

• The gap analysis is very important because the gap in perception between groups can provide insight into how aware each group is of each other;

• Two gap analysis slides follows in this section and five additional slides are in the Supporting Slides section.

Participant Group

Communication TimelinessComplaint

HandlingResponsiveness 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


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



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

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

FSManagement

(3)

FSSupervisors

(4)

Team 1 (5) Team 3 (13) Team 5 (12) Team 6 (11) CustomerFocus Group

1 (4)

CustomerFocus Group

2 (5)

Aux Services(2)

Athletics (6) Housing (2)

Pa

rtio

cip

an

t Sc

ore

Average Scores by Participant Group

Participant Group Average Overall Average

213

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

FS STAFF & CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS PERCEPTION GAP ANALYSIS


22

213

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

STAFF & CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS – PERCEPTION GAP ANALYSIS


23

21 3

Additional Gap Analysis

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

SCORES BY ATTRIBUTE AND PARTICIPANT GROUP


24

Communication TimelinessComplaintHandling

Responsiveness Access Quality Competence Customer ServiceEase of Doing

BusinessOverall

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

-

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Par

tici

pan

t Sc

ore

Scores by Attribute and Participant Group

FTE ESTIMATING GUIDELINES AND PROTOCOL


25

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

GUIDELINES & PROTOCOLS

• Cleaning industry and higher education facilities management 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.

• This assessment relies heavily on the concepts and protocols contained in the APPA Guidelines.


26

1Custodial Operational Guidelines for Educational Facilities (APPA Guidelines) – this is a publication

of custodial staffing and management concepts and protocol that have been in the public domain 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).

http://www.appa.org/

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

GUIDELINES KEY COMPONENTS

• APPA 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.


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).

http://www.issa.com/

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

APPA CUSTODIAL SERVICE LEVEL DEFINITIONS BY LEVEL


28

Level 1 - Orderly Spotlessness: Level 1 establishes cleaning at the highest level. It was developed for the corporate suite, the donated building, or the 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

fresh. There is no buildup in corners or along walls. 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 of dirt, dust, stains, or streaks.

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 other staffing-related problem. It is a lowering of normal expectations. 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 unacceptable. People are beginning to accept an environment lacking 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

obvious buildup of dust, dirt, and/or floor finish in corners and along walls. Molding is dull and contains streaks and splashes.

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


29

• APPA and higher education facilities management community have traditionally advocated APPA Level-2;

• However, due to limited resources and constrained budget, many colleges and universities have targeted APPA Level-3, or somewhere between APPA Level-3 and APPA Level-2;

• NMSU Custodial Services is experiencing similar limited resources and budget constraints;

• 43% of 242 institutions in the FY14/15 APPA Facilities Performance Indicators (FPI) Survey1

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;

• Because of budget constraints, NMSU will likely have to adopt APPA Level-3, or somewhere between APPA Level-4 and APPA Level-3 (as close to APPA Level-3 as possible).

4

114104

19

12%

47% 43%

8%0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Pe

rce

nt

of

Res

po

nd

ents

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

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).


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.).• Building• Floor• Space ID (e.g.: room number)• Cleanable Square Feet (CSF)• Desired Cleanliness Level

• Standard tasks and frequencies

• Standard “times to perform” for tasks

• Standard parameters for materials and equipment cost

Output for core functions only excluding additional duties2 and supervision:

• FTEs &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 occupant.

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


31

• CS salary profile based on positions in organization chart as of 2-7-2017;

• Average wage rate for APPA FY14-15 FPI survey participants is considerably higher than CS wage rate;

• All workers in the three NMSU custodial workers job titles spend virtually 100% of their time performing cleaning duties;

• Custodial Leads are spending virtually 100% of their time as custodial workers and 0% of their 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


32

• Based on 3.8 million usable square feet of spaces plus housing make ready and summer conference cleaning at the time of the assessment;

• Assume cleaning Auxiliaries, Housing, and Athletics at APPA Level-2 while cleaning the I&G spaces at the indicated level;

• Supervisory, contracted services and additional duties not reflected in the above 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


33

• In-House FTE requirement adjusted for additional duties, supervision, and contracted cleaning service to compute total In-House FTE requirement, including supervisory minus contracted services FTEs;

• The green bar reflects the historical Available FTEs due to historical average number of vacant positions –this further impacts the number of FTEs available for cleaning;

• Recharge customer space under Service Level Agreement (SLA) cleaned at APPA Level-2, while I&G spaces are cleaned at the indicated level;

• See CleanOpsStaff-3ed Reports R1 through R14 in the CleanOPsStaff-3ed section of this report for 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


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


34

• Total budget requirement including contracted services, supervision, and additional duties;

• Does not include uniforms, vehicles, utility carts, or other expenses in the custodial organization budget not directly connected to the cleaning function;

• Recharge customer space under Service Level Agreement (SLA) cleaned at APPA Level-2, 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


35

• Based on 3.76 million Usable Square Feet (CSF) of spaces and NMSU Local Variables at the time of the assessment;

• Assumes that Auxiliaries, Housing, and Athletics is cleaned at APPA Level-2 in accordance with SLAs in all three above cases;

• Assumes that the Custodial Organization will ramp up to handle housing make ready, turnover, and summer conference support;

• Based on current supervisor/lead staffing which should be 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

• There is a gap of 31 FTEs and $996.8K to achieve APPA Level-2 for SLA spaces and APPA Level-3 for I&G spaces operating as an average performing organization;

• Custodial Service current staffing is adequate to achieve APPA Level-4 with average operation;

• It is estimated that the organization can enhance its results with organizational enhancements.

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-4APPA Level-3APPA Level-2

ASSESSMENT RESULTSNMSU CURRENT & HISTORICAL STAFFING (VACANT POSITIONS)


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 of the year equals 0.5 Available FTEs; a full-time position vacant for 3 months equals 0.75 Available FTEs)


37

• Required FTEs exceeds Authorized FTEs to 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

• Available FTEs have historically been less than Authorized FTEs, but vacancy rate is very low compared to industries norms and what is sometimes found at other universities;

• Average historical vacancy rate of 4.0% for last three years should not have an extraordinary adverse impact on CS’s ability to achieve acceptable results;

• However, vacancy rate is surging to exceed 10% with 12 vacancies at time of this assessment which if not 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 of the year equals 0.5 Available FTEs; a fulltime position vacant for 3 months equals 0.75 Available FTEs)


38

• Required FTEs exceeds Authorized FTEs to clean Recharge 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

• Available FTEs have historically been less than Authorized FTEs due to vacancies;

• Average Historical vacancy rate of 4.0% for the last three years and surging to exceed 10% with 12 vacancies at time of this assessment;

• 28 FLMA cases for FY 16 estimated at 6 FTEs (4.9%) (NOT VERIFIED YET);• Vacant positions plus extended medical absence pushes the effective vacancies to 18 (9.4%) further reducing the Available FTEs

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

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

7/1

/14

8/1

/14

9/1

/14

10

/1/1

4

11

/1/1

4

12

/1/1

4

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

/1/1

5

11

/1/1

5

12

/1/1

5

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

/1/1

6

11

/1/1

6

12

/1/1

6

1/1

/17

2/1

/17

Vac

ant

Po

siti

on

s

Date

Vacant Positions Plus Long Term Medical Absence

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

NMSU CUSTODIAL SERVICES WORKERS RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY PROFILE


39

Custodial Workforce Retirement Eligibility Profile:

• Custodial Services has historically experienced a low turnover rate, however, as noted in the preceding slides, there were 12 vacant positions at the time of the site visit;

• There were 33 custodians eligible for retirement at the time of the site visit;

• The graph in this slide shows the retirement eligibility rate rising to 44 over the next five years;

• high-performing custodial organizations must be supported by a recruitment and hiring process that is capable of filling vacant positions within two weeks of the position becoming vacant;

• FS will have to take action to address the likely increase in personnel separations due to retirements.

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION – RECRUITMENT AND HIRING


40

Finding-X

Filling vacant custodian position takes too long.

• While Custodial Services has historically experienced a low turnover rate there were 12 vacant positions at the time of the site visit with 33 custodians eligible to retire;

• The retirement eligible population will grow to 44 in five years – 35.7% of authorized positions;

• Based on interviews with workers and administrative staff, the current process of hiring custodian can take as long as three months or more;

• For a segment of the workforce where there are always vacancies and the required skill set is 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:• Form an Action Team made up of representatives from all groups that play a role in hiring and

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.

• Adopt the idea that except for the requirement for background checks, custodial positions should not be subjected to the same process used to hire higher skilled personnel.

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION – RECRUITMENT AND HIRING


41

Recommendation-X (continued):• The University should formalize a process that is continuously recruiting and hiring custodial

workers to reduce the time to fill vacant positions to two weeks or less;

• The University should make multiple selections from a single recruitment when the applicant pool contains multiple qualified candidates;

• NMSU should also focus on employee retention in addition to reducing the time to fill vacant positions;

• The above mentioned Action Team should conduct a formal mini-compensation study for the 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;

• The Action Team should coordinate with FS staff working on the custodial worker training program to determine if FS can be in a position to train candidates who do not already have cleaning experience.

ASSESSMENT RESULTSORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND WORKER TO SUPERVISOR-LEADER RATIO


42

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE


43

Observations: • The current organization is staffed

to be managed and led by a Manager, 6 Supervisors, and 7 Custodial Worker Leads;

• The frontline workers carry the job titles Custodial Worker and Custodial Worker, Sr.;

• Based on interviews with the management/supervisory staff, it is not clear what percentage of the Custodial 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;

• Based on interviews with Custodial Workers, and Custodial Workers Leads, the Custodial Workers Leads spend virtually 100% of their time functioning as Custodial Workers;

• The span of control for supervisors appear to be a challenge considering that the Custodial Worker Leads are not trained to function as true Crew Leaders, and are not performing as Crew Leaders;

• The three levels in the Custodial Worker title provide for promotional opportunity for custodians – these promotional opportunities are a positive aspect and should not be abandoned.

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

WORKER TO SUPERVISOR-LEADER RATIO


44

Supervisory and Leadership Observation:

• If the Custodial Leads actually worked as leads instead of workers, the NMSU Workers-to-Supervisor/Lead Ratio of 7.46 would be comparable to that reported by the 242 FY 14-15 FPI participants, and considered acceptable;

• However, since the NMSU Custodian Leads work as 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;

• The NMSU Direct Reports-to-Supervisor Ratio is also higher than all benchmarks, further enforcing the conclusion that the NMSU custodians do not have

enough supervision and leadership.



45


CUSTODIAL SERVICES ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

Finding-1:

Need to transform into a high-performing professional cleaning organization:

• To compensate for staffing and budget constraints, there is a need to transform Custodial 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:

• FS undertake a formal Custodial Services Enhancement Program (CSEP) to be developed and 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.

• It is recommended that as part of the CSEP, the CSEP-IT develops an Integrated Cleaning 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 operation. The plan should address but not be limited to: (1) the adopted policies and 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.


46


CUSTODIAL SERVICES ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

Recommendation-1 (continued):

• Aspects to consider:

– 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 of space without validation that the space is cleanable. Validation by the CS is likely to find spaces in the analysis that should be removed;

• Important Note: Finding-1 and Recommendation-1 should be considered the foundation which supports all of the other individual findings and recommendations contained in this report. While the other findings and recommendations are listed individually in the 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.


47


ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE – SAMPLE STRUCTURE


48

Finding-2:

Revise Leadership Duties and Consider Different Organizational Structure:

• NMSU custodial supervisory and leadership duties are being performed by the supervisors with only occasional random assistance from the Custodial Worker Leads. The percentages of time 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;

• Position description for Custodial Worker Leads adequately describes appropriate duties expected of such a position, however, the holder of these positions are not properly trained to perform the duties and are not performing them;

• The current position description for Custodial Worker Lead does not prescribe a percentage of time to be spent performing leadership duties vs. cleaning tasks – this has resulted in virtually 100% cleaning;

• The Custodial Manager does not have adequate administrative, training, and quality 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 organizational strategic activities.


ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE – SAMPLE STRUCTURE (CONTINUED)


49

Recommendation-2:

• FS review the pros and cons of consolidating the supervisory duties into a smaller number of positions, and increase the Leads positions so that the Workers-to-Supervisor/Lead Ratiobecomes 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;

• FS rewrite Custodial Worker Lead position descriptions to prescribe that at least 50% of the time be spent performing the leadership duties, and 50% performing cleaning tasks;

• FS collects and reviews Supervisor and Crew Leader position descriptions from high-performing cleaning organizations for review and benchmarking;

• If this adjustment is made, it should be done in a manner that would preserve a career ladder 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.


ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE – SAMPLE STRUCTURE


50


• FS consider the Pro and Cons of adapting a custodial organization structure similar to the sample in this slide;

• Assign Crew Leader 50% leadership duties;

• Ensure Workers-to-Supervisor/Lead Ratio does not exceed 10 based on FTEs;

• Workers-to-Supervisor/Lead Ratio computed as (Number of workers)/(Number of Supervisors + 50% of the number of Leads);

• Crew leaders would be responsible for 4 hours of cleaning, and 4 hours leading the crew and providing audits and inspections for quality control, as well as communicating with the building occupants;

• This is a change that has personnel and workforce morale implications, and must be implemented in a thoughtful and orderly manner, so as not to decrease the morale of the workforce;

• This change should not be made without ensuring there are well trained individuals available for new empowered Crew Leaders positions – it is not enough to be a good Custodial Worker in order to be a good crew leader;

• The term “Crew Leader” is being used here generically, and FS should use a term that fit best into the NMSU job title system, however, there must be a concerted effort to recast how the FS workforce currently thinks of a Custodial Worker Lead.


ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE SUPPORT


51

Finding-3:

Need for Administrative, Training, and Quality Assurance support: • The Custodial Manager does not have adequate support in the areas of administrative, training, and quality

assurance. This causes the manager to spend too much time taking phone calls and chasing day-to-day issues detracting from time to devote to customer outreach and organizational strategic activities;

• The Custodial Manager does not have ready access to information upon which to judge organizational performance, and does not have administrative support to help assembly such information;

• There is no central entity responsible for quality assurance and workforce training – these are two functions that high-performing cleaning organizations are staffed to perform with their own in-house personnel;

Recommendation-3:• FS evaluate the value of providing the Custodial Manager with dedicated resources to support the

administrative, training, and quality assurance areas;

• The goals of the support should be to:

– 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.


TRAINING


52

Finding-4:

Need for an in-house managed formal training program and an in-house trainer:

• While Custodial Services has a stated goal of providing training to the custodial workers, no formal cleaning skills training is being provided to the workers on a consistent basis;

• While the mandatory training on safety and compliance appear to be taking place, there is no formal cleaning skills training for new workers nor is there cleaning skills retraining for existing workers;

• FS custodial workers typically are assigned to shadow another worker to learn what is expected – high-performing custodial organizations recognize that this approach tends to lead to inconsistent results, and probable perpetuation of poor practices and techniques;

• The inconsistency reported by the customer focus group participants can be traced back to the lack of a formal training program and SOPs;

• FS Custodial Services adopted the Buckeye HONORS program as the framework for its procedures and training, however, the workers are not well versed in the program, and most of them are not familiar with the concepts at all – no worker had seen the flow diagrams in the HONORS manual, nor did they report ever having a discussion about them;

• None of the workers interviewed were familiar with the APPA concept of cleaning levels, and could not describe the level of cleanliness expected from them.


TRAINING


53

Recommendation-4:

• FS take charge of the custodial worker cleaning skills training program and assign to one or two FS staff member(s) as a primary responsibility. It is not unusual for a custodial organization with 100+ custodial workers to have someone on staff responsible for cleaning skills training;

• This duties likely would not require a full FTE and can be combined with other duties as necessary. It can also be shared between two positions to ensure continuity for vacation and other absences;

• Ensure the training is presented from formally documented material that is integrated with the organization’s adopted concept of cleaning, and the equipment and supplies actually being used by the organization;

• Cleaning skills training should be provided for new employees and retraining should be provided to existing employees;

• Since CS has a large population of workers for which English is their language or Spanish is their only language, CS should consider steps to provide training in Spanish;

• CS should also consider sponsoring free English as a Second Language classes for workers during their off hours;

• Certificates of completion should be awarded to employee who successfully complete the training and acquisition of cleaning skills should play a part in custodial workers promotions.


SUPERVISORY AND CREW LEADER TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT


54

Finding-5:

Need for supervisory and crew leader training and professional development:

• While 4 of the 6 CS supervisors have attended the APPA Supervisor Toolkit training and there 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 no professional development program for Custodial Worker Leads;

• While there is superior knowledge of the APPA concepts of cleaning at the management level, there is only casual familiarity at the supervisor level, and virtually no familiarity at the worker level;

Recommendation-5:

• FS develop a cleaning professional development program to provide both technical cleaning and leadership professional development for its Supervisors and Custodial Worker Leads;

• FS consider the value of allowing Supervisors to attend cleaning professional conferences and trade shows paid for by the NMSU;

• FS consider the value of allowing the Manager and Supervisors to make benchmark visits to other colleges and universities known to have high-performing cleaning organizations;

• Require Manager and Supervisors to formally share the knowledge they gain with staff at all levels of the organization.


EQUIPMENT


55

Finding-6:

Need to review the equipment inventory and equipment procurement program:

• CS reported spending only $9,231 (0.25% of labor cost) for equipment in FY 14-15 – a rule of thumb used by the Consultant is any annual equipment budget less than 5% of labor cost warrants further review ;

• This level of annul spending on equipment except for one-time exceptions is considered typical by the Custodial Manager;

• CS current equipment inventory consists of only 88 pieces for 113 authorized custodial workers;

• CS ‘pieces per custodial worker’ is very low compared to other clients the Consultant has worked with. One client with a similar workforce had 462 pieces of equipment in inventory.

Recommendation-6:

• CS review its approach to equipping its custodial workers to ensure there is an equipment program in place that provides the correct quality and quantity of equipment;

• Engage the services of an independent cleaning equipment expert with no connection to vendors or suppliers, to assist in conducting an cleaning equipment needs analysis based on the specific buildings and cleaning needs on the NMSU campus;

• Formalize the equipment inventory database to contain necessary data elements about each piece of equipment to support procurement decisions based on age, life cycle, condition, and economic productivity rates.


EQUIPMENT


56


• Conduct random inventory validation and condition inspection throughout the year so by year-end, all equipment would be inspected and accounted for;

• Add age and condition information, and end-of-life estimates to the inventory database;

• Develop a equipment replacement plan based on expected service life, age and condition, and economic productivity rates;

• Include a line in the budget to fund the equipment replacement plan in a proactive fashion –do not rely on year-end funds;

• Evaluate the value of providing basic equipment preventative maintenance and repair service in-house by acquiring an individual with the appropriate skill set – likely not a full FTE;

• Ensure the custodian training program properly trains custodians to perform the equipment operator care tasks prescribed by the equipment manufacturer.


STANDARDIZED PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES


57

Finding-7:

Need to review and redevelop standardized processes and procedures:

• CS has the making of standard processes and (SOPs) in the form of the Custodial Core Function 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:

• FS review and redevelop standard processes and SOPs, and train the workers to perform their work in accordance with the SOPs;

• FS establish a program to ensure workers are performing their work in accordance with standard processes and SOPs;

• This will help to address the issue of inconsistent service mentioned most often by the customer focus group participants.


PROJECT TASKS


58

Finding-8:

Need for a program to ensure project tasks are performed as prescribed:

• CS is not performing the quarterly and annual interim and restorative floor care tasks 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;

• CS Core Function List prescribes Carpet Extraction and Re-Finish Hard Surface Floors frequency as every other year;

• APPA Level-3 prescribes frequency for Interim Floor Care as quarterly and Restorative Floor Care as annually;

• Since floor care is such a larger component of the cleanliness determination, it is not possible to achieve APPA Level-3 CS infrequent floor care activity.

Recommendation-8:

• It is recommended that CS review its tasks and frequencies in the Custodial Core Function List, and reinstate interim and restorative tasks consistent with what is prescribed in the APPA Guidelines for APPA Level-3;

• Consider a designated project crew who would not be allowed to perform recharge work to ensure I&G spaces receive appropriate project work.


JANITOR CLOSETS AND JANITOR CARTS


59

Finding-9:

Need for cleaner orderly janitor closets and carts:

• During the cleanliness inspection, the Consultant noted that janitor closets and carts could stand to be cleaner, more uniform, more orderly, and more organized.

Recommendation-9:

• It is recommended that CS develop a uniform standard for organizing and stocking janitor 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 organizing the closets and carts should then become a routine task and a regular inspection item. The APPA Guidelines workloading protocol includes time for custodians to clean closets and carts;

• Some cleaning professionals believe that if the janitor closets and carts are not clean and orderly then it is very likely that the spaces to be cleaned are also are not clean and orderly.


INFORMATION SYSTEMS – FULL USE OF STAFFING AND OPERATION SOFTWARE


60

Finding-10:

Need to use technology to assist in workloading, staff assignment and scheduling:

• CS owns the license for the APPA CleanOpsStaff-3ed™ custodial operation and staffing software, and has begun to make use of it.

Recommendation-10:

• It is recommended that Custodial Services fully implement the APPA CleanOpsStaff-3ed™ software. It is recommended that several buildings be selected to serve in a pilot program, and that APPA CleanOpsStaff-3ed™ software be fully implemented in these buildings as proof of concept. Implementation should proceed in a phased manner until the remaining buildings 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


61

Finding-11:

Need to make use of custodial performance indicators:

• Modern day high-performing custodial organizations have access to high-quality 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 decisions. Examples of key performance indicators that should be collected and analyzed on a 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:

• It is recommended that FS evaluate the benefits of establishing a Custodial Performance 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


62

Finding-11:

Need for a formal quality assurance program:

• CS uses a modified audit and inspection system that does not provide for frequent enough 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:

• It is recommended that CS review Chapter 7 of the APPA Guidelines book, and bring its 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.


CLEANABLE SQUARE FEET INVENTORY DATA SET


63

Finding-12:

Need for a Cleanable Square Feet Data Set:

• NMSU Custodial Services started developing its Cleanable Square Feet Inventory Data Set during this assessment. The Consultant has imported Usable Square Feet data into the APPA operation and staffing software. The next step is for FS Custodial Services to validate the Usable Square Feet data to transform it to become a Cleanable Square Feet Inventory Data Set.

Recommendation-12:

• It is recommended that CS set a timeline for completely validating the CleanOpsStaff-3ed™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.


CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS – CUSTOMER OUTREACH PROGRAM


64

Finding-13:

Need for enhanced customer communication:

• Comments and survey scores from FS, and customers rate Communication as the area in need of the most improvement. Customer focus group participants stated that they do not know 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:

• It is recommended that CS evaluate whether it is making the highest and best use of the 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.

• It is recommended that CS review its current presence on the FS website, and ensure it has 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.

FY 14-15 APPA FPI COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS


65

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

NMSU COMPARISON TO COHORTS AND SUMMARY BENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI)


66

• Observations:

• NMSU cost per GSF is less than all summary benchmarks:

o Low wage labor market most significant factor;

o Personnel position vacancies minor factor;

o Authorized positions below the number commensurate with the desired cleaning 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



67

• Observations:

– 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



68

• Observations:

• NMSU fringe benefits is less than all summary benchmarks;

• NMSU fringe benefits is less than all the cohort average.

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



69

Institution StudentsCustodial GSF

CleanedCustodial 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



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/GSFObservations:

• Cost/GSF is lower than the cohort average;

• Cost/GSF is lower than all summary benchmarks;

• Cost/GSF is lower than all except four cohorts;

• Low Cost/GSF driven by lower wage rate and under-staffing.

Custodial Cost Per GSF Comparison:

ASSESSMENT RESULTS



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/ StudentObservations:

• Cost/Student is higher than the cohort average;

• Cost/Student is lower than all summary benchmarks except one;

• Cost/Student is lower than all except four cohorts;

• Low Cost/Student driven by lower wage rate and under-staffing.

Custodial Cost Per Student Comparison:

ASSESSMENT RESULTS



72

Observations:

• GSF/FTE is significantly lower than the cohort average;

• GSF/FTE is lower than all summary benchmarks;

• GSF/FTE is lower than all except three cohorts;

• Each NMSU custodial worker 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



73

Observations:

• NMSU reported achieving Reported Service Level-2 in the APPA FY 14-15 FPI;

• Most cohorts reported Level-3 or Level-4;

• Reported Service Levels in the FPI survey are determined formally by audit for some participants and by professional informal estimation by others;

• The FPI survey will only accept whole numbers as input.

Custodial Reported Service Level Comparison:

THE END


74

QUESTIONS


75

APPENDIX


76

APPENDIXASSESSMENT APPROACH


77

Pre-Visit Phase

• Assessment kickoff Webinar;• Information Request;• Requested information;• Plan Site Visit.

Site Visit Phase

• Interviews;• Information Validation;• Audit/Inspections/Tours;• Out brief of preliminary

impressions.

Data Analysis and Review

• Build data and information model for;

• Analyze all data and information;

• Agree to lock in and freeze data.

Final Draft Report

• Write Final Draft report;• Client review and comment

on final draft.

Final Report

• Revise and create pre-final report;

• Receive client comments on Pre-Final report;

• Deliver Final Report;• Webinar/phone

discussion of pre-final report.

Post Final Report

• Webinars/phone discussion for report presentation and clarification.

On site Recap

Approach Details



78

• Pre-Visit Phase Activities– Pre-Visit phase start immediately upon receipt of a purchase order or other form of

official notice to proceed;

– 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 objectives are fully understood;

– 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.



79

• Final Pre-Visit Online Document and Data Review Online Meeting– 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.

• Site Visit Phase – 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.

• Data Analysis and Report Writing Phase – 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.

• Final Report Delivery– 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 online meetings for presentation and clarification of the final report;

– Generally deliver the draft report within a week after receiving client’s final comments on the final draft.

SUPPORTING SLIDES

APPA FPI COHORT PROFILE


80

Institution Funding Carnegie ClassAPPA

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

ValueCRV/GSF

New Mexico St Univ Public Research High RMA 12,000-19,999Inc 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 12,000-19,999Exc 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 12,000-19,999Exc 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 12,000-19,999Exc 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 5,000-11,999Exc 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 12,000-19,999Exc 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 12,000-19,999Exc 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 12,000-19,999Exc 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 12,000-19,999Exc 20-29 2.00 3.00 2.00 3,345,782 79 23.0 235 $1,542,456,500 $461.02



81


FS GRAND TOTAL FTE REQUIREMENT


82

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R1FS GRAND TOTAL FTE REQUIREMENT


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.


I&G SPACES


84

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R2I&G SPACES FTE REQUIREMENT BY SPACE CATEGORY BY LEVELS


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

sq. ft.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

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 5Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Subtotal 7,009 2,270,444 97.07 10.79 107.86Seq 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 – R3I&G SPACES FTES AND COST OF CLEANING FOR APPA LEVEL-3 BY BUILDING


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)


87

Seq BuildingNumber 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 -

92 HORSE FARM-HORSE BARN - 507 15 3,979 0.00 0.00 -


Seq BuildingNumber 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 -

89 HORSE FARM-HORSE BARN - 507 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)


88


HOUSING SPACES


89

1,097,668 13.69 $405,852 $40,585 $20,293 $466,723

Row Building Number

of Rooms

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 Support32 Total Building - 1,097,668 CSF ($0.43 per CSF)

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R4HOUSING GRAND TOTAL FTE AND COST (INCLUDES COMMON AREAS, MAKE READY, AND SUMMER CONFERENCE SUPPORT)


90

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R5HOUSING COMMON SPACES APPA GUIDELINES CUSTODIAL FTE REQUIREMENT BY CATEGORY BY LEVEL REPORT


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

sq. ft.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

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


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


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


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


Housing Common Spaces Only. Does not include Make Ready work or summer conference support.

Level 4 Level 5Level 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

SeqBuilding Number

of Rooms

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


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


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 – R6HOUSING SPACES FTES AND COST OF CLEANING FOR APPA LEVEL-3 BY BUILDING


92

Routine FTEs Project FTEs

Total FTEs

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R7HOUSING MAKE READY WORK BY CATEGORY


93

• 3.82 FTEs of total effort:− 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

sq. ft.

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 Ready228,888 1.18

Seq Space Category

Total

Cleanable

sq. ft.

FTE of

Effort

2 HOUSE Sleep/Study With Washroom {Res Area} 228,888 1.176

Houses Make Ready

• 1.18 FTEs of total effort for houses:− Time of need varies throughout the

year.

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R8HOUSING MAKE READY BY BUILDING


94

Subtotal 4,393 459 1.18

Seq Building Number

of Rooms

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 Building30 Total Buildings - 970,828 CSF (194,369 CSF per FTE)

• 4.99 FTEs of total effort for Dorms and Apartments:− 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

of Rooms

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


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



Housing Dorms and Apts Make Ready FTEs by Building Report

• 1.18 FTEs of total effort for houses:− Time of need varies throughout

the year

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R9HOUSING SUMMER CONFERENCE SUPPORT


95

• 2.97 FTEs of total effort− 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 Support460 Total Cleanings

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R10HOUSING SUMMER CONFERENCE SUPPORT


96


AUXILIARIES SPACES


97

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R11AUXILIARIES GRAND TOTAL FTE AND COST


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

of Rooms

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

sq. ft.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.


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


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


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


Level 4 Level 5Additional Description Cell Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R12AUXILIARIES SPACES APPA GUIDELINES CUSTODIAL FTE REQUIREMENT BY CATEGORY BY LEVEL REPORT


99

Subtotal 414 219,138 12.48 1.18 13.66

Seq Building Number

of Rooms

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




By Building

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R13AUXILIARIES SPACES FTES AND COST OF CLEANING FOR APPA LEVEL-2 BY BUILDING


100

Routine FTEs

Project FTEs

Total FTEs


ATHLETICS SPACES


101

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R14ATHLETICS GRAND TOTAL FTE AND COST


102

176,400 10.39 $308,031 $30,803 $15,402 16,981 $2.01 $354,236

Row Building

Number

of

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 29 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.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No

of

cust.

sq. ft. per

custodian

No

of

cust.

sq. ft. per

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




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 – R15ATHLETICS SPACES APPA GUIDELINES CUSTODIAL FTE REQUIREMENT BY CATEGORY BY LEVEL REPORT


103

CLEANOPSSTAFF-3ED REPORTS – R16ATHLETICS SPACES FTES AND COST OF CLEANING FOR APPA LEVEL-2 BY BUILDING


104

Subtotal 338 176,400 9.46 0.93 10.39

Seq BuildingNumber

of Rooms 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


By Building9 Total Buildings - 176,400 CSF (16,981 CSF per FTE)


Total FTEs

Project FTEs

Routine FTEs

SUPPORTING SLIDES


105

SUPPORTING SLIDES

NMSU CURRENT IN-HOUSE FTES REQUIREMENT VS APPA CLEANING LEVELS – ALL SPACES TREATED EQUALLY


106

SUPPORTING SLIDESNMSU CURRENT IN-HOUSE FTES REQUIREMENT VS APPA CLEANING LEVELS – SLA SPACES CLEANED AT APPA LEVEL-2


107

SUPPORTING SLIDES

CURRENT CLEANING PERFORMANCE STATUS – BUDGET REQUIREMENT


108

SUPPORTING SLIDES

NMSU CURRENT IN-HOUSE CLEANING WORKER FTES VS APPA CLEANING LEVELS


109

SUPPORTING SLIDES



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

APPA FY 14-15 FPI Custodial Salary Profile

171.0 $14.39

SUPPORTING SLIDES



111

SUPPORTING SLIDES



112

Cleaning Level FTEs

APPA Level-1 296.2

APPA Level-2 183.4

APPA Level-3 144.5

APPA Level 4 113.4


APPA Level-5 94.1

NMSU Current In-House Cleaning

Worker FTEs Vs APPA Cleaning Levels

SUPPORTING SLIDES



113

Cleaning Level FTEs

APPA Level-1 304.0

APPA Level-2 191.2

APPA Level-3 152.3


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



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



115

Manager

Supervisor

(198682)

17 - Custodial Workers

1 - Lead(s)

Supervisor

(198875)


1 - Lead(s)

Supervisor

(198442)


2 - Lead(s)

Supervisor

(198517)


1 - Lead(s)

Supervisor

(198879)


1 - Lead(s)

Supervisor

(719312)


1 - Leads()

SUPPORTING SLIDES



116

Manager

Supervisor

Crew Leader

Custodial Workers

Custodial Worker, Sr

Crew Leader

Custodial Workers


Crew Leader

Custodial Workers


Supervisor Supervisor

Training

Administrative Support

Quality Assurance

SUPPORTING SLIDES

NMSU CUSTODIAL PERSONNEL FTES AS REPORTED IN THE FY 14-15 APPA FPI


117

Institution

Custod

Supt/ Mgr

FTE

Custod

Supvr/

Fore FTE

Custod

Crew/Tea

m Ldr

FTE

Custod

Hsekeeper

FTE

NMSU 0.70 5.00 7.00 89.50

All Participants 1.39 5.91 9.39 83.15

RMA 1.35 4.93 6.25 77.39

Research High 1.50 6.40 9.67 90.51

Public 1.50 6.81 10.46 100.28

12,000-19,999 1.49 5.01 14.09 78.67

SUPPORTING SLIDES

WORKERS-TO-SUPERVISOR/LEAD RATIO (FY 14-15 FPI DATA)


118

SUPPORTING SLIDES

DIRECT REPORTS-TO-SUPERVISOR RATIO (FY 14-15 FPI DATA)


119

SUPPORTING SLIDES



120

Participant Group

Communication TimelinessComplaint

HandlingResponsiveness 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



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



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

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

FSManagement

(3)

FSSupervisors

(4)

Team 1 (5) Team 3 (13) Team 5 (12) Team 6 (11) CustomerFocus Group

1 (4)

CustomerFocus Group

2 (5)

Aux Services(2)

Athletics (6) Housing (2)

Par

tio

cip

ant

Sco

re

Average Scores by Participant Group

Participant Group Average Overall Average

21

3

21 3

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

ADDITIONAL PERCEPTION GAP ANALYSIS


1221 of 5, Back to main slide

ASSESSMENT RESULTS



123

2 13


ASSESSMENT RESULTS



124

21 3


ASSESSMENT RESULTS



125

12 3


ASSESSMENT RESULTS



126

21 3

Last, Back to main slide

SUPPORTING SLIDES

FALL 2015FACILITIES AND SERVICES CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS

Confidential for The New Mexico State Universityfor 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.

Date post:	23-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trandang
View:	216 times
Download:	2 times

N MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY · Confidential for The New Mexico State University for Discussion...

Documents