A STRATEGIC PROCUREMENT

PROJECTFOR

LAUNDRY UPGRADE

Cross Functional Team Leader: Rusty Thomas, Procurement Services

Evaluation Team: Frank Corris, CPO, Procurement ServicesBev Wyatt, Residential HousingBill Fetty, Laundry Coordinator Holly Elliott, Budget Mgr, Shared Services

Current State

Vendor: Laughlin Music and Vending 40+ Years of laundry service to OHIO Current Equipment is out dated High level of student dissatisfaction in that

washing cycles do not match drying cycles and students overpay for drying time

Current equipment does not meet current energy efficiency ratings

Facilities are not in good condition Ductwork is clogged and unsafe

Laughlin Revenue History

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009* 2009-2010*0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

$278,464

$320,749

$300,223 $300,553

$108,493

Laughlin proposal

drops commissions to OHIO

from 67% to 25%

Ohio University Laundry Program

RFP Overview Significant research was performed to look for high

efficiency equipment to reduce energy consumption and waste effluents

Pre-Bid meeting was conducted to tour seven potential bidders through some of the current laundries be they for student use or production equipment

The three top providers made oral presentations to the evaluation team as well as: Enrique Hermosilla, Residential Coordinator, Josh Bodnar, Assistant Residential Coordinator Brian Stephens, Student.

The two finalists where asked to respond to nine clarifying questions and make their “best and final” offers

Proposal No. 1

Laughlin Vending: Presentation was poor and lacked professionalism

exhibited by other vendors Presenter could not respond to basic technical

questions Local company with extensive history in the

Athens/OU community Proposal raises wash rate to $2.00 No formal training or education program for the

students No indication that they ever clean dryer vents Have out grown their ability to serve our needs Their financial offering was the lowest of the finalists

Proposal No. 2 ASI:

ASI was the most organized of the vendors Headquartered in Ohio and highly recommended Best overall presentation: Presentation was geared towards the whole service package Included laundry program an option to increase revenue Electronic access control on laundry doors opposed to opening/closing daily – Smart! Had innovative ideas ie: 25 cent wash weekends, conducts surveys, Routine maintenance & vent cleaning Looking at a GREEN detergent alternative (currently in test) Did their homework on machine/student ratio Would prefer to get away from bill changers and onto a card system Will switch Bromley over to ASI right away “Catwash” Marketing Campaign with Renovations – Innovative Proposal did not adequately address housekeeping services currently provide by

Laughlin No local representative: Maintenance 1 to 2 hours away “not a full time job” Parent company in bankruptcy Response to financial questions was vague, financial statements ended March

of 2008, liquidly ratios indicated cash flow problems. Requested additional request for information continued to be vague.

Response to bankruptcy was misleading and created an air on mistrust with the response.

Proposal No. 3 Caldwell & Gregory

Spent time discussing technical aspects on atheistic improvements Provided he most capital to be used to renovations Will allow OU to determine how and where renovation money is spent Unused monies are given to Ohio University They had outstanding education programs “Included” laundry program an option Planned to hire a local maintenance person to service just our campus Housekeeping Services provided and included in pricing and employees two local

residents Routine maintenance includes expert dryer vent cleaning to improve energy

efficiencies Full time Card System “expert” on staff Wants to offer 24/7 service to the students and provided benchmark data to

support the concept. Feels that they can increase student usage by 40-50% with a “goal is to get gross

revenue to $650,000 per year” Great references with over 80 colleges and universities currently under contract Financial revue showed full liquidly and ability to serve Ohio University without

creating an uncomfortable financial situation.

Revenue Projection vs. Current

Laug

hlin

Cur

rent

200

8-20

09

Laug

hlin

Pro

pose

d 20

09-2

010

ASI P

ropo

sed

2009

-201

0

C

&G Pro

pose

d 20

09-2

010

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

$300,553

$108,493

$378,968

$320,547$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

Water/Sewage Savings

Benefits/Highlights Room renovations will include:

New paint New ducting Washer and dry enclosures New flooring in some areas Decaling with OHIO logos

New energy efficient front load washers and double stacked dryers will be provider in all locations

Water consumption and sewage waste water will each be reduced by 4 million gallons per year

Saving on water and sewage equal $50,000/year Wash and Drying times will be closer to 1:1 ratio

Considerations of Decision between ASI/Coinmach Laundry and Caldwell & Gregory

Both had outstanding references, with near 100% satisfaction.

Both concentrate on university laundry service Both total financial offering packages are an improvement

over current provider plan. ASI/Coinmach’s parent company, Babcock and Brown is

currently in “voluntary administration” in Australia The financials submitted by ASI/Coinmach where dated

March 31, 2008 and indicated a loss in revenues, and showed no total positive assets compared to liabilities

Given consideration to all available information and taking to account the advisement of John Biancamona, Legal Affairs, it was decided not to award to ASI/Coinmach

Recommendation Justification

Award to Caldwell & Gregory Following final negotiations with Caldwell

& Gregory that resulted in an additional 5% increase in revenues, the Evaluation Team made the unanimous decision to recommend Caldwell & Gregory as the new provider.

Further Recommendations“Include Program”

The “Include Program” is a forward thinking practice observation that access each resident student a flat fee for laundry services

Every school that has gone to this program has had positive student feedback and benefited the university financially.

Recommended annual fee of $100/year doubles the income revenue to the university

For the students it allows: Unlimited cycles and eliminates the need for cash Eliminates the for expensive monitoring equipment Increase hours of operation

Can be made available to “off-campus” students with student ID card much like Bobcat cash

Result in increased income to Resident Housing Recommend transition to the “Include Program” for school year

2010-11 through the fee structure showing the laundry as a value-add for increase.

Revenue Projection vs. Current

Laughlin Current 2008-2009

Laughlin Proposed 2009-2010

C&G Proposed 2009-2010 C&G Include Program 2010-2011

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

$300,553

$108,493

$320,547

$421,116

Because of a significant change in equipment type, an additional $50,000 /year in water and sewage saving can be value added to the C&G commission.

Post Award Improvements

Before Photo

Still to Come:Folding tablesStudy TablesSeating UnitsFramed signs Card Readers

After Photo