purdue university review and assessment of custodial ...€¦ · purdue university review and...

FINAL REPORT Purdue University

Review and Assessment ofCustodial Services

West Lafayette Campus

August 2010

This page intentionally left blank

Review and Assessment of Custodial Services Page i

ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1

Background ...................................................................................................................... 1

Analysis and Results ......................................................................................................... 1

Overall Assessment .......................................................................................................... 3

Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 3

APPROACH TO THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 4

Internal Data .................................................................................................................... 4

External Data .................................................................................................................... 5

Hybrid Sources .................................................................................................................. 5

OVERVIEW OF THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 5

Custodial Supplies and Equipment .............................................................................. 5

Traditional Custodial Tasks ............................................................................................. 6

Non-Traditional Custodial Tasks ..................................................................................... 7

Intangible Benefits ........................................................................................................... 7

ANALYSIS OF CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES ................................................................................... 7

Method .............................................................................................................................. 7

Results ................................................................................................................................ 8

ANALYSIS OF CUSTODIAL EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 8

Method .............................................................................................................................. 8

Results ................................................................................................................................ 9

ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL CUSTODIAL TASKS ................................................................ 9

Method .............................................................................................................................. 9

Results .............................................................................................................................. 11

Other Observations ....................................................................................................... 12

Efficiency Impact Assessment ..................................................................................... 12

CONSIDERATION OF NON-TRADITIONAL CUSTODIAL TASKS ....................................... 13

CONSIDERATION OF INTANGIBLE BENEFITS .................................................................... 13

OTHER METRICS .................................................................................................................. 14

Building Services Sightlines Data ................................................................................. 14

Building Services Feedback and Inspection ............................................................. 19

Review and Assessment of Custodial Services Page ii

Recognition of Service Quality for Building Services ............................................... 20

University Residences Customer Feedback .............................................................. 21

OUTSOURCING EXPERIENCES........................................................................................... 22

Appendix 1 Working Group Participants...................................................................... 23

Appendix 2 APPA Levels of Cleanliness ........................................................................ 24

Appendix 3 Huron Business Case for Custodial Supplies ............................................ 26

Appendix 4 Consolidated Equipment List ..................................................................... 48

Appendix 5 APPA Detailed Analysis by Area ............................................................... 55

Appendix 6 Estimated Total Cost vs. Benchmark ........................................................ 63

Appendix 7 Non-Traditional Tasks ................................................................................... 64

Appendix 8 Intangible Benefits of Internal Staff ........................................................... 68

Appendix 9 Peer Group for Sightlines Comparison to Purdue .................................. 71

Appendix 10 Building Services Customer Satisfaction Survey ................................... 72

Appendix 11 Building Services – Survey Results July 2009 – April 2010 ..................... 73

Appendix 12 Select 6 Comparison Peer Institutions .................................................... 74

Appendix 13 Confidentiality and the Use of EBI Benchmarking Study Data .......... 75

Appendix 14 ACUHO-I Benchmarking Results – 2006/2007........................................ 76

Appendix 15 University Residences – Survey Results February 2010 – May 2010 .... 79

Review and Assessment of Custodial Services Page iii

Figures

1 – Estimated “Quick Win” Savings on Custodial Supplies ........................................... 2

2 - Custodial Services FTE Compared to APPA Standards Summary ......................... 2

3 - Custodial Services FTE Compared to APPA Standards ........................................ 11

4 - Density Factor (2009) .................................................................................................. 16

5 - Custodial Materials – Historical Trend ....................................................................... 17

6 - Custodial Materials (2009) .......................................................................................... 18

7 - Custodial Staffing (2009) ............................................................................................ 19

Review and Assessment of Custodial Services Page 1

Purdue UniversityReview and Assessment of Custodial Services

West Lafayette Campus June 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background In February 2010, the University identified that employees of six separate areas provided custodial services across the West Lafayette campus. Over time, outside firms have approached the University with suggestions that outsourcing these functions could reduce cost, thus contributing to the Sustaining New Synergies (SNS) objectives. The SNS Task Force was charged with analyzing Custodial Services on the West Lafayette campus to provide an assessment of those services. Representatives of each of the six areas were invited to participate in this “needs assessment”. Based on this review, attached is a report of the needs and an assessment of current custodial services on the West Lafayette campus.

The six areas of the West Lafayette campus which constitute the basis of this assessment are:

� Building Services, responsible for most academic, administrative and public facilities, as well as those at Discovery Park and Purdue University Student Health

� University Residences, also responsible for student dining facilities � Purdue Memorial Union and Purdue Memorial Union Club Hotel � Intercollegiate Athletics facilities � Division of Recreational Sports � School of Veterinary Medicine Teaching Hospital

Participants of the Working Group are listed in Appendix 1.

The Working Group focused on the following areas: 1. Review supplies and equipment purchases for cost improvement opportunities; 2. Identify the custodial needs across the University, including standard levels of

service by type and use of area; 3. Understand fully allocated labor costs.

Analysis and Results In March 2010, the Sustaining New Synergies Task Force engaged Huron Consulting Group to conduct a strategic sourcing implementation for Purdue University. In the objectives of this engagement, Huron was to deliver “quick wins” in strategic sourcing which could enable Purdue to learn and replicate the methodology for strategic sourcing. One commodity group identified in the quick wins list was custodial supplies. The Working Group then incorporated the quick wins led by Huron into the scope of this


assessment. In this analysis, Huron focused primarily on paper items, one of the highest dollar expenditures, or about 27% of total custodial supplies expenses.

Cost improvements related to supplies and possibly equipment are expected to be achieved through the newly implemented strategic sourcing approach to procurement. Huron’s initial assessment of savings opportunities in one particular commodity (paper) suggests the savings opportunity described in the following table in Figure 11. Cost improvement in other supplies and equipment commodities is also expected to be achieved through future sourcing efforts.

Figure 1

Estimated “Quick Win” Savings on Custodial Supplies

Estimated�Annual�Spend�

Estimated�Savings�Opportunity�Range�

Low�%� � High�%� Low�$� �� High�$�

$481,315�� 3%� � 20%� $14,720�� $97,620��

With respect to custodial staffing needs, this review identified that the six areas of custodial services on the Purdue University West Lafayette campus are delivering highly valued services at measurably efficient levels according to industry standards. Figure 2 summarizes all six areas and indicates that Purdue’s custodial departments operate at a high measure of efficiency using only about 78% of the industry’s standard staffing levels to provide the targeted levels of service.

Figure 2

1 Huron Consulting, Custodial Supplies - Paper Products Business Case, 6/1/2010

Current Current PU FTE

Area Square Footage Level FTE Purdue FTE SF/FTE vs APPA Stnd

6,518,538 2-3 394.6 307.5 21,198.50 77.9%

3,656,741 1-4 310.0 244.8 14,937.67 79.0%

300,211 1-2 41.8 31.0 9,684.23 74.2%

592,284 1-3 33.3 26.0 22,780.15 78.0%

DRS Custodial Services (RSC & Aquatics)

261,943 2 15.0 12.2 21,470.74 81.1%

Vet Medicine--VTH Custodial Services

37,633 1-3 11.3 6.3 5,973.49 55.8%

11,367,350 1-4 806.0 627.8 18,106.64 77.9%

Target APPA

Purdue University Custodial Services FTE compared to APPA Standards

Intercollegiate Athletics

Building Services Areas

University Residences

Purdue Memorial Union

Total Purdue

Custodial FTE

Custodial FTE

Custodial FTE

Custodial FTE

Custodial FTE

Custodial FTE


This level of efficiency has significant impact on the overall cost of the services provided to the University. While benchmark data suggests the University average custodial total labor cost is higher than the market area, this increased cost is more than offset by the productivity level of the custodial staff.

Customer satisfaction with our internal custodial staff has proven to be very high, with the two largest areas having exceptional documented feedback from recent surveys. Moreover, Purdue’s custodial staffs complete significant other non-traditional duties included in their standard job performance expectations which are covered with current FTE staffing levels. Current collaboration between the six areas provides additional flexibility to adequately cover duties in emergencies or long-planned facility shutdowns. A significant list of other intangible benefits derived as part of the existing structure was also documented during this review and have been included with this document. Considerable unsolicited positive commentary from customers was received during the time of this study and reinforced the belief that our custodial employees across all of the areas are considered important members of the Purdue staff and community.

Overall Assessment Purdue’s custodial services are delivered:

� With high levels of efficiency, on the basis of FTE and per cleanable square foot; � With consistently high quality of service; � In a decentralized structure found to generate substantially improved and

customized service levels driven by unique departmental needs; � In a collaborative environment where resources, leading practices and

cooperation deliver improved efficiencies and savings to multiple units of the University;

� With an internally-staffed management and service team providing flexibility to: o Efficiently incorporate “non-traditional” tasks; o Accommodate on-campus emergencies related to weather or other

events; o Make immediate adjustments to meet department-level priorities; o Engage students workers in areas where they live and study;

� While blending housekeeping, maintenance, R & R planning, project management and certain student activities within each separate area;

� While acting as an additional security level on campus, helping protect students, staff and faculty in addition to buildings, equipment and research;

� With the trust of campus employees, staff and residents; � Perhaps most importantly, by a long-tenured, caring workforce dedicated and

vested in the mission and strategic plan of the University.

Recommendations While the current structure is deemed to be one which achieves high efficiency and service levels at moderate cost/FTE, there may be opportunities to push the bar of achievement further. It is suggested that Purdue:

� Continue the internal staffing of our decentralized custodial services; � Repurpose the Housekeeping Committee as a Commodity Group of the strategic

sourcing effort to enhance collaboration and reduce duplicate efforts;


� Expand consolidation and sourcing of cleaning supplies and equipment using new strategic sourcing skills recommended by Huron Consulting;

� Assess the “team cleaning” effort currently underway in Building Services; � Study overtime impact and alternatives; � Continue to utilize outsourcing of certain specific tasks under Purdue-led

management when external service delivery and total costs compare favorably to internally staffed services.

In summary, given the existing high performance and efficient levels of staff, and the opportunities to pursue reductions in supplies and equipment, it is the recommendation of this Working Group that custodial services continue to be provided with internal staff. In addition, the past collaboration and the proposed expansion of responsibilities for the existing Housekeeping Committee will serve as a model to the University on how to achieve high levels of cooperation and coordination across decentralized areas.

APPROACH TO THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT

There is no one external source of “master custodial services”; as this topic has been reviewed, the specific requirements and specialized tasks performed in each separate area became quite evident. Moreover, an understanding of the use and purpose of specific space generally dictates the manner and level of cleanliness required. A comparison to any other facility, or a statement of effort required to achieve a specific level of cleanliness could not be made without significant description and caveats. Thus, to create a fair and representative analysis, the evaluation comprised data from various internal and external sources.

Internal Data Custodial Services at the West Lafayette campus have evolved into very customized and precise tasks over time. Moreover, while general cleaning tasks on campus overlap across areas and standard tasks can be performed by outside providers, it quickly became evident that dissimilarities exist across the specific needs of the various areas. The Working Group sought to identify common ground and to explore the differences to evaluate opportunities for synergies, collaboration and consolidation. The following areas were identified for review:

� Custodial supplies and equipment � Traditional custodial tasks � Non-traditional custodial tasks � Intangible benefits


Over the last 20 years, a pre-existing Housekeeping Committee has convened on a regular basis. Generally, the purpose of this group has been to discuss and test new products and to share experiences among the group concerning custodial processes, products and vendors. The commodity buyer for cleaning supplies from Purchasing Services also participated in this effort. In an effort to receive the lowest price, over time this group has successfully consolidated product buys and established common product performance expectations. The input of the participants of this Working Group was a significant contribution in the assessment of products and services of the custodial staff.

External Data Two sources were identified to have applicable, industry-specific information concerning tasks and staffing. One source, APPA, has compiled a significant body of work concerning staffing guidelines for designated levels of building appearance/cleanliness. Second, Sightlines, a consulting firm focused on higher education facilities, has developed survey and physical plant information from institutions of higher education. While neither of these sources can produce a complete comparison to Purdue’s structure and efficiency on a cost and functional basis, some assessment is possible.

Hybrid Sources Limited empirical information exists on service/quality metrics. With respect to customer satisfaction, the two largest areas of custodial services on the West Lafayette campus periodically canvas customers for customer feedback and assessment. Building Services utilizes an external tool to standardize inspections conducted by internal staff and combines that information with an internal customer survey. University Residences periodically participates in a multi-institution survey, encompassing much more than just custodial services, but is able to derive a limited assessment against other institutions of higher education. University Residences also conducts internal inspections and makes available an internal survey tool to assess customer satisfaction.

OVERVIEW OF THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Custodial Supplies and Equipment Under the existing processes, each area currently assesses the quality and functionality of cleaning supplies and equipment specifically for that area. Recognizing the opportunity to consolidate products for leveraged buying improvements, the working group compiled a list of the major cleaning products used by the various areas, resulting in a combined supplies list of approximately 200 individual items or “stock keeping units” (i.e., SKUs). Findings included:


� Same product/different brands were discussed for functionality, price and customer service (provided by the vendor). Sixteen items were eliminated, due to the opportunity to consolidate products. As a result, approximately 50 items were deemed to be major common SKUs;

� Eleven “green” products were identified where an improvement in price might increase product use across areas;

� At least 11 specific products have an inherent and necessary performance difference required by the users, and therefore consolidation opportunities are not possible

� Multiple channels are utilized to purchase identical supplies, including utilizing the University Stores and purchasing directly from a distributor or manufacturer.

Recognizing the opportunity to consolidate products and thus push a more leveraged purchase strategy with providers, the working group attempted to consolidate products to a smaller number of SKUs of the major cleaning products. This resulted in the elimination of several items in the consolidated group, with those areas agreeing to switch to the alternate product when any on-hand commodity was completely utilized. With the successful collaboration across areas, this newly consolidated list was utilized by Huron Consulting Group in the development of the strategic sourcing business case. The detailed study and recommendation are in the Analysis of Custodial Supplies in Appendix 3. Beyond the quick win target in this business case, the remaining custodial supplies will be evaluated by the Working Group for further strategic sourcing overall cost improvements.

The Working Group began a similar effort focused on equipment. A similar strategic sourcing approach will assess the opportunities to further generate cost savings.

Traditional Custodial Tasks Assessment of custodial tasks demonstrated a wide disparity of services performed across facilities, and the level of cleanliness2, as defined by APPA, varies from facility to facility and within each facility. Refer to Appendix 2 for a complete description of the five APPA levels of cleanliness. Depending on many factors, including the customers served in that facility, specialized equipment, the hours of service, etc., the “traditional tasks” may vary. For each area, traditional tasks were assessed under the APPA standards. Traditional tasks are considered to be those tasks described in the APPA standards. Non-traditional tasks are explained elsewhere.

The APPA data provides a measure of the “standard” Full Time Equivalent (FTE) labor required based on square footage of a specific type of facility. With respect to the varying APPA standards of cleanliness, data has been compiled through extensive research to quantify a standard FTE. The availability of this standard enables a comparison with Purdue and thus provides an estimate of Purdue’s efficiency. Data was gathered and compiled in the following manner:

2 Custodial Staffing Guidelines for Educational Facilities, Second Edition. The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers, 1998, p. 45


� Function and square footage of areas are provided from the Space Management and Academic Scheduling (SMAS) system;

� Only space for which custodial services are actually performed is included in the measure of square feet (“cleanable square feet”);

� Level of cleanliness was provided by the area of custodial services; � Current headcount was provided by the area of custodial services; � Assignment of SMAS area type to APPA area type (“Treat Like”) was validated by

each area of Custodial Services.

The analysis is summarized in the Analysis of Traditional Custodial Tasks on page 9.

Non-Traditional Custodial Tasks Each area of the University performs specific tasks which are not considered traditional custodial tasks or clearly defined as custodial tasks under APPA guidelines. Examples include outside grounds care, light maintenance, painting, security, etc. In some instances, these tasks relate to services provided to the area’s customers, for example, set up and break down of sporting events in Intercollegiate Athletics. Completion of these tasks is imperative and critical for the welfare of the residents and guests, as well as for the overall maintenance of the facilities. A more complete review of non-traditional tasks is provided in Consideration of Non-Traditional Custodial Tasks on page 13.

Intangible Benefits In the review of internally provided services, much feedback was provided from customers, employees and the areas under study concerning the many benefits derived from internal staffing. The first and last impressions of visiting students, parents, alumni, faculty and staff are often included in the comments around intangible benefits. These considerations are addressed in Consideration of Intangible Benefits on page 13.

ANALYSIS OF CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES

Method Supplies and equipment are purchased from a variety of vendors under market pricing or fixed (bid) prices. Often these bid prices are negotiated under the leadership of Purdue’s Purchasing Services department. In other instances, a pricing agreement is established between a vendor and a specific area of campus. In yet other purchases, current market pricing is paid for purchases. This approach does not maximize the buying and negotiating power of the University, nor does it leverage quantity and relationship opportunities. Under the strategic sourcing initiative, these opportunities become visible and attainable.


In the initial efforts of evaluating the supplies used by the custodial staff, the goal was first to identify overlapping products which could be consolidated across the areas. This first step can maximize volume-pricing opportunities of stated products for a single vendor. By individual area, the Working Group identified key cleaning products for which continued use was expected. Consolidating the list, the group identified:

� Overlap of functional products. Products were reviewed for effectiveness and cost. Where a product was given “commodity” status, i.e., no significant discernable performance characteristics, the service/price combination was pushed in the preference and selection of a product.

� Opportunity to go “green”. Several green products have been introduced over the last few years. In some instances, extensive testing showed that some green cleaning products do not perform comparably or adequately. Moreover, green products may have slight premium or discount in price as compared to the non-green product. There is an opportunity to increase the use of green products if price improvement were possible.

� Non-commodity products. A small number of products have a key performance distinction which may not be applicable for all areas, and thus will require ongoing purchase, despite smaller quantities of unconsolidated volumes.

� Core list of products with future opportunities. Additional products are expected to be considered once the strategic sourcing “quick wins” are completed.

ResultsOnce the supplies list was consolidated, Huron Consulting Group, the University’s consultant for strategic sourcing developed the business case based on this file and additional vendor data. In this analysis, focusing on new sourcing strategies around paper supplies, Huron estimates potential savings of $14,000 to $97,000. Based on the opportunity to approach vendors simultaneously, the Working Group is also recommending a strategy for cost improvement in plastic liners. The recommendation to pursue this sourcing strategy is currently in progress.

A detailed report of the business case is provided in Appendix 3.

ANALYSIS OF CUSTODIAL EQUIPMENT

Method The initial consolidation of the equipment used by the various areas indicated that there are few components which are purchased on a regular and routine basis across the campus. Typical use of custodial equipment, which includes vacuums, floor scrubbers, and wet and dry mops, indicates undetermined use expectancy for much of this small equipment; replacement pieces are generally purchased as needed. However, coordinating the purchase of this equipment across the areas suggests that a leveraged buy could provide some quantity discount opportunity.


ResultsAlthough strategic sourcing of custodial equipment was not highlighted by Huron to be a significant savings opportunity in the overall initial assessment, there are likely savings to be achieved. Annual spend is in the range of $150,000 per year, including facility vehicles. This product category will be analyzed once sourcing for custodial supplies has been completed.

The summary of equipment gathered to date is provided in Appendix 4.

ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL CUSTODIAL TASKS

Method Industry standards of cleanliness and staffing have been compiled by APPA. In 1992, APPA collected data from over 400 North American institutions of higher education to create the concepts of: Five Levels of Clean; Standard Spaces; and Standard Space Matrices. These standards were revised in 1996 to refine the data for a more accurate comparison between custodial operations of various institutions. These standards allow comparison between institutions of higher education, and enable an independent measure and standards for cleanliness and efficiency. Such comparisons are routinely used by institutions to justify staffing requirements to management.3 Within these APPA measures, levels of 1 to 5 have been established to designate the highest to lowest measures of cleanliness, meeting established targets and frequencies for a defined list of cleaning tasks. The levels are listed below; a detailed description of each level is provided in Appendix 2.

Level 1 – Orderly Spotlessness

Level 2 – Ordinary Tidiness

Level 3 – Casual Inattention

Level 4 – Moderate Dinginess

Level 5 – Unkempt Neglect

Across the Working Group, different APPA levels are selected to provide care of specific areas and different types of customers. Depending upon the use of the facility, the residents/users of the area, visibility to the public, health and safety requirements, management of the various areas have selected the appropriate standards,

3 Custodial Staffing Guidelines for Educational Facilities, Second Edition. APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers, 1998, p. 19.


communicating tasks and frequencies to the custodial staff and supervisors. Additionally, due to budget constraints, in some instances as staffing has been reduced, a lower APPA standard has been accepted.

APPA defines cleanable areas by type of space: the purpose of its use, general traffic levels, sanitation requirements, etc. All cleanable space in the needs assessment was thus identified as an APPA space for which the standards are measured on a square foot basis. For each cleanable space, the Working Group provided its cleaning level target; Space Management and Academic Scheduling (SMAS) data was used to capture the square footage being cleaned. Each SMAS area was matched to the APPA data with the “treat like” concept explained by APPA.4 For each area of this assessment, an assessment of the area’s efficiency was determined using these APPA standards. In APPA terms one FTE is presumed to have 260 days, less 10 holidays, available for working status.5 One day is comprised of 420 productive minutes per shift, in lieu of 480 fully allocated minutes.6 The overall assessment is the combination of all areas.

The chart in Figure 3 on the next page summarizes the six areas, documenting the required FTE for given square footage at the 5 levels of APPA standards. The detailed analysis provided in Appendix 5 calculates each specific area type and notes the APPA standard FTE under the University’s targeted service level. These evaluations enable a precise comparison between the APPA standards and University-provided FTE.

4 APPA, p. 3. 5 Ibid, p. 9 6 Ibid, p. 3.


Figure 3

ResultsA consistently high level of efficiency is apparent across the University’s custodial services groups, as compared to APPA standards. Overall, Purdue achieves targeted APPA cleaning levels with approximately 78% of the APPA-suggested FTE. With the exception of the Vet school, for reasons related to student and technician participation in some custodial services, the various areas are in a narrow range of 74% to 81% of APPA standards. This consistent measure suggests similar approaches of custodial efforts across campus, despite some variance likely due to the specific requirements of an area. For example, the facilities which are highest in the range accommodate a regular 24-hour schedule of residents and customers, suggesting some level of 24-hour custodial needs.

StaffIngArea Square Footage 1 2 3 4 5 Level FTE SF/FTE vs APPA

Building Services AreasCustodial FTE 6,518,538 865.8 451.1 338.1 240.7 190.3 2-3 394.6 16,519.71 77.9%Current FTE 2009-10 Budget 307.5 21,198.50

University ResidencesCustodial FTE 3,656,741 389.4 251.8 189.5 155.7 135.5 1-4 310.0 11,797.45 79.0%Current FTE 2009-10 Budget1 244.8 14,937.67

Purdue Memorial Union Union 179,914 28.9 17.3 12.4 9.5 n/a 2 17.3 Union Club Hotel2 87,801 26.4 21.4 15.9 12.7 n/a 1-2 22.6 Stewart Center2 32,496 4.1 1.9 1.7 1.1 n/a 2 1.9 Custodial FTE 300,211 59.3 40.6 30.0 23.2 1-2 41.8 7,190.48 74.2%Current FTE 2009-10 Budget 31.0 9,684.23

Intercollegiate AthleticsCustodial FTE 592,284 64.9 39.1 25.3 17.5 12.7 1-3 33.3 17,777.63 78.0%Current FTE 2009-10 Budget 26.0 22,780.15

DRS Custodial Services (RSC & Aquatics)Custodial FTE 261,943 31.6 15.0 11.0 9.0 8.2 2 15.0 17,409.96 81.1%Current FTE 2009-10 Budget 12.2 21,470.74

Vet Medicine--VTH Custodial ServicesCustodial FTE 37,633 11.6 11.4 11.2 11.1 11.1 1-3 11.3 3,332.17 55.8%Current FTE 2009-10 Budget 6.3 5,973.49

Total Purdue 11,367,350 1,422.5 808.9 605.1 457.4 n/a 1-4 806.0 14,104.13 77.9%Current FTE 2009-10 Budget 627.8 18,106.64

1 Does not include estimated student labor of 16.2 FTE; APPA comparisons would be 84.2% and 72.6%, respectiv ely.2 Trustee space in both PMU & STEW are kept at APPA lev el 1

Custodial Services FTE Compared to APPA Standards

FTE at Designated APPA Level Target APPA


Other Observations Similar to the OS1 program being tested at another Big 10 school, Building Services began testing its own variation of team cleaning in April 2010. Self-directed work groups were piloted in Discovery Park, along with revised task schedules and personnel rotations. The pilot will determine if greater efficiencies and productivity might be achieved through group or team-based cleaning. Short-term benefits have been encouraging. That initial pilot program has since been expanded to incorporate additional work groups on both the day and overnight shifts. By the end of June, six working teams will be in place, comprised of 25-30 staff, refining the techniques and gathering workload data that will be used to determine whether the program should be implemented more broadly.

Additional observations include:

1. APPA Service levels vary across and within areas; 2. Some efficiency at Purdue is likely due to a variety of factors, including but not

limited to: long-term tenure of staff, some part-time student staffing, and the match-up of facility “types”;

3. Additional staffing reductions have also placed an increased challenge to achieving the APPA standards;

4. University Residences supervisors cover many areas of responsibilities outside of supervising and directing custodial staff including Project Management, R &R planning, financial oversight, HR tasks, corrective & preventive maintenance and student activities;

5. The average staff to supervisor ratio at Purdue of 19:1 exceeds the industry target of 18:1.7 Assessments of supervisor span of control are difficult to compare. Small work areas with very specific traditional and non-traditional tasks make this an inconsistent target at Purdue, while the larger work areas generally reach or exceed this target.

6. Additional peer comparisons to study staffing structure and supervisor span of control could provide additional data to assess Purdue’s relative performance.

Efficiency Impact Assessment While neither Sightlines nor APPA provide any labor cost information, Purdue’s total labor cost can be compared with the use of this efficiency measure. Referring to Figure 3, Purdue’s 78% staffing level versus APPA (627.8 FTE versus 806 FTE) indicates an efficiency of 178 positions. Although actual market data for labor and benefit costs are not available, the accomplishment of APPA cleaning standards at the current staffing levels is a significant cost savings to the University. An estimate of benchmarked total costs is provided in Appendix 6.

7 Per Jay Pearlman, Sightlines, Director of Product Development, to Tamm Hoggatt of Purdue University Residences, June 9, 2010.


CONSIDERATION OF NON-TRADITIONAL CUSTODIAL TASKS

In the review of tasks performed by the custodial staff, it became quickly apparent that much beyond the APPA-listed tasks are performed by the Purdue custodial staff in addition to the traditional custodial tasks. These “non-traditional tasks” or “project activities” are assigned in addition to the traditional tasks on both recurring and non-recurring schedules. In general, these tasks are related to weather and scheduled events and may be in direct service to customers or facility maintenance. Additionally, in many instances custodial staff of one area is made available to another area to provide flexibility to cover emergency or other unplanned events. This flexibility has enabled significant cost savings over time, as extra staff was neither “on call” nor on paid status for standby readiness. Each of the custodial areas has indicated that this flexibility is a major factor towards delivering customer service satisfaction while maintaining low costs.

A sample of the non-traditional tasks includes such responsibilities as:

� Grounds maintenance-trimming, edging, weeding, etc. � Snow removal and walkway safety treatments; � Event set-up and tear-down; � Unlocking rooms for student and hotel residents; � Flag service to designated flag sites; � Extension of security services, notifying management or campus police when

appropriate; � Light maintenance and painting; � Athletic and campus events set-up, parking, teardown and cleanup.

Appendix 7 summarizes the non-traditional tasks by area. Although considered non-routine at Purdue, there exists the possibility that some tasks so considered are actually “standard APPA” tasks.

Purdue has benefitted from a decentralized structure in which job descriptions provide sufficient flexibility to allow various responsibilities be assigned as needed to custodial staff. Any restrictions on job responsibilities would inhibit this flexibility and likely result in additional staffing or costs.

CONSIDERATION OF INTANGIBLE BENEFITS

As customers and employees heard about the custodial review, unsolicited feedback was provided from all over campus concerning the many benefits derived from internal staffing. The many positive observations offered from the University community addressed the following topics:


� Purdue Pride and Community – custodial staff are part of the Purdue community, contributing a clean and comfortable atmosphere and maintaining the world-class facilities

� Engagement and Quality – uphold strict standards for sensitive work areas, utilize sustainable practices as possible, cultivate strong relationships with all constituents, act as partners in student success to encourage and motivate students

� Security and Trust – promote as sense of trust and familiarity for campus participants, serve as an additional internal security force, and perform off-hours security with physical presence

� Flexibility, Reliability and Teamwork - are flexible in schedules to execute unexpected and non-traditional tasks, serving as reliable work force

� Commitment and Loyalty – demonstrate dedication and enthusiasm, many with long term employment at the University, providing depth of knowledge about the University, facilities and processes

� First and last Impressions - create a visually appealing and well-maintained facility for visitors, which serves as a home and working environment for students and employees.

The detailed observations listing intangible benefits are provided in Appendix 8.

OTHER METRICS

Building Services Sightlines Data Building Services participates in an industry-specific data repository administered by Sightlines, a consulting group compiling information from over 200 institutions in the United States. Annually, data is consolidated from the participants concerning many different aspects related to the Physical Plant components of the campus. Sightlines uses their QVQ Process—Quantify, Verify, Qualify—to create the largest database of verified Physical Plant information in the country.8 Of specific interest in this report, Sightlines has some survey data related to custodial information.

In reviewing this information, the reader should recognize that the survey data may not reflect the position of an entire institution. For example, Purdue’s participation in this survey is limited only to Building Services activity at the West Lafayette campus. Additionally, the use of “average” rather than “median” can sometimes result in interesting comparisons, depending on the sample size. Thus, the information is not intended to be a total view of the surveyed institutions and an overall population. Rather, the information can be viewed as a barometer of outliers. To the extent any school finds

8 Sightlines, http://sightlines.com/, May 29, 2010


itself on either end of the spectrum in a surveyed item, there should be additional review and examination of the data.

The Sightlines data below provides comparisons through 2009. The schools in the selected peer group are medium and large public and private institutions. Purdue ranks generally slightly more efficient than the average of these schools. While the Sightlines data is useful for indicative purposes, due to the manner in which the data is gathered and assessed, the absolute value of any specific metric may vary from the data developed internally by the individual school, including Purdue. Additionally, current metrics may vary to this summary due to recent reductions in headcount at Purdue. A listing of the peer group is provided in Appendix 9.


Figure 4

Purdue Building Services has the highest customer traffic for the selected peer group, for the custodial areas measured.


Figure 5

Over the last 10 years, Purdue Building Services has generally managed costs for custodial materials significantly under the peer average. At Purdue Building Services, while costs have been increasing over 6 years, Purdue’s cost is still well below the peer average.


Figure 6

In 2009, Purdue Building Services managed the cost of custodial materials significantly lower than the average, despite the trend for increasing overall costs.


Figure 7

In this analysis, Purdue Building Services is slightly below the average gross square foot cleaned by FTE in the manner which Sightlines calculates the average. Note that Sightlines uses Gross Square Footage while the Analysis of Traditional Custodial Tasks is based on Cleanable Square Foot. This analysis excludes supervision staff. Most of the schools in the survey are well below Purdue Building Services.

Building Services Feedback and Inspection In an effort to improve customer service, Building Services seeks feedback using a survey from the building deputy and random occupants of every building twice a year.


Building Services conducts a custodial inspection of all buildings on a semiannual basis, roughly 130 buildings every 6 months. This inspection methodology uses CompuClean software by Spartan Chemical. The CompuClean software is based on the APPA cleaning standards. When the building is due for inspection, key occupants are requested to complete a short customer service survey. (See Appendix 10.) The survey is provided to all building deputies and/or key occupants within the buildings scheduled to be inspected for a particular month. The results of the survey are consolidated and submitted to management with oversight of Building Services. Current response rate is about 64% with a 97.3% satisfaction rate. Over the July 2009 to April 2010 period, overall satisfaction was 96.5%. (See Appendix 11.)

Inspection is led by an independent inspector from Building Services (i.e., someone who does not have oversight of custodial responsibility of that facility.) All public areas, classrooms/labs and custodial closets are inspected. In addition to overall cleanliness to stated levels, the inspections evaluate facilities and relevant building equipment/machinery for non-standard wear and tear or maintenance requirements. The CompuClean software provides a standardized scoring system to measure effectiveness of the custodial tasks, ensuring consistency of reported results and allowing meaningful trend and performance measurement. The scoring result provides an indication of the APPA level of cleanliness. A visual assessment of general mechanical performance is part of the custodial staff’s responsibility which contributes to reduced R&R costs; the inspection verifies there is compliance with this responsibility. Supplies and equipment care is also a focus in the inspection of the custodial closets which contributes to cost containment efforts in those areas. The summary results are distributed to supervisory, administrative and professional staff and follow up issues assigned.

The yearly inspections average for the last three years is detailed below:

2007 – 75.6 2008 – 77.5 2009 – 79.6

These totals equate to a low APPA 2 to a high APPA 3 standard for academic buildings.

Recognition of Service Quality for Building Services Building Services was recently recognized for its efforts in “green cleaning” and received a national award from American School and University Magazines for “Best New Green Cleaning Program in the Country for 2009”.

Additionally, Building Services received a national award from Facility Manager Magazine for APPA’s “Effective and Innovative Practices Award”. Building Services is in the process of converting the campus from desk-side trash pickup to desk-side recycling pickup, helping to create a corporate social change towards recycling first.


University Residences Customer Feedback The following information outlines the two most recent methods used to gauge custodial customer service within University Residences.

First, the longest on-going process is an educational benchmarking survey completed through the Association of College & University Housing Officers (ACUHO-I). This assessment was introduced in 1998 as a joint project between ACUHO-I and Educational Benchmarking, Inc (EBI). Purdue has participated regularly since its inception. Although focused on residential life, the survey also touches on facilities and dining.

This assessment measures the effectiveness of various aspects of the housing experience on student development and resident satisfaction with their housing. Survey questions are grouped into two types – profile and perception. Typical profile questions ask the resident their gender, ethnicity, and class standing. Typical perception questions ask the resident, whether living in the residence halls led to improved interactions and understanding of drug/alcohol use/abuse, and satisfaction on aspects of housing such as cleanliness and services. All perception questions are based on a one to seven scale. One represents very dissatisfied or no agreement and 7 represents very satisfied or extreme agreement.

Due to conflicting campus-wide initiatives, University Residences last conducted the ACUHO-I benchmarking survey in the spring of 2007. At that time, 1,797 responses were gathered from a sample size of 5,000 residents for a 36% response rate. The satisfaction of Purdue residents’ was then compared with 266 other colleges and universities, including a subset of 37 other Carnegie Class - Research Universities with very high research activity like Purdue. In addition, 6 peer institutions were selected for specific comparison. Appendix 12 contains a confidential listing of the names of the comparison peer group. Although only three questions were directed at custodial services, our scores showed high levels of resident satisfaction.

The participation in and use of this survey is subject to a contractual confidentiality agreement. This agreement is found in Appendix 13. The survey results are provided in Appendix 14.

Customer satisfaction is also measured through a new survey which both residents and staff are invited to complete (via e-mail) following any maintenance repair they have reported via the web. This brief survey, the Maximo Customer Satisfaction survey, has been focused primarily on the quality, communication, and efficiency of maintenance staff. As recently as February 2010, two environmental satisfaction questions were added to help evaluate custodial performance. To date the results have been very positive with the scores heavily favoring excellent experience with both custodial and maintenance performance.

The survey data updates automatically as customers submit their feedback. The results present a University Residences summary but also allow University Residences to benchmark between buildings or operations. The Purdue Memorial Union will be


included in the results later in 2010. The current survey results for University Residences can be viewed in Appendix 15.

OUTSOURCING EXPERIENCES

The University has been engaged in outsourcing over the years, recognizing opportunities, evaluating outside providers, and using external resources when it was in the University’s best interest due to constrained timeframes, the need for specialized equipment or training, or capturing cost savings.

University Residences � Exterior Window Cleaning – Outsourcing has been used in instances where

windows require specialized expensive equipment to reach great heights and specialized training to ensure staff safety.

� Carpet Cleaning – Although most of our carpet cleaning is completed in house, at times it has been advantageous to outsource this task. Vendors have expensive high powered truck mounted vacuums that can extract more water, reducing drying times so operations can resume service more quickly, which is especially helpful in our dining operations. In some instances, outsourcing is used to avoid staff overtime.

� Apartment Cleaning – For several years, some apartment cleaning at Purdue Village and Hilltop has been outsourced. The outside contract is used to supplement custodial staff’s effort to ensure meeting the operational needs to transition quickly from student customers to conference guests. Price and service levels have varied widely over the years. For example, one vendor’s pricing for summer 2010 nearly quadrupled over the same vendor’s previous year pricing.

Building Services � Building Services has outsourced all exterior windows cleaning for the academic

campus for much of the last 25 years. Building Services manages the contract to clean half of the academic campus each summer. The contract is typically between $25,000 and $35,000.

While these experiences are limited, they indicate an opportunistic position to source labor for specific, limited tasks with significant internal supervision, contributing to the overall efficiency of custodial services supplied on campus.


Appendix 1Working Group Participants

Participant Department Area of Participation Terry Ashlock Building Services Working /Commodity Group Katie Cahill-Rincon Sustaining New Synergies Task Force Peer Analysis Research Terry Clayton Purdue Memorial Union and Club

Hotel Working /Commodity Group

Lee Ann Happ Veterinary Medicine Working /Commodity Group Tamm Hoggatt University Residences Working /Commodity Group Paul Horsley Intercollegiate Athletics Working /Commodity Group Denise Laussade Sustaining New Synergies Task Force Team Lead John Lopresti Sustaining New Synergies Task Force Peer Analysis Research Kevin Maurer University Residences Working /Commodity Group Martha May Building Services Working /Commodity Group Mitch Nettesheim Division of Recreational Sports Working /Commodity Group Barry Noah Purchasing Services Working /Commodity Group Larry Pherson Purchasing Services Working /Commodity Group Katie Schultz Sustaining New Synergies Task Force Peer Analysis Research Steve Simmerman Intercollegiate Athletics Working /Commodity Group Bruce Strainer Sustaining New Synergies Task Force Peer Analysis Research Michael Tian Sustaining New Synergies Task Force Peer Analysis Research Lary Troutner Department of Business Mangers APPA Study and Analysis


Appendix 2 APPA Levels of Cleanliness9

Level 1 – Orderly Spotlessness

� 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. Lights all work and fixtures are clean.

� Washroom and shower fixtures and tile gleam and are odor-free. Supplies are adequate.

� Trash containers and pencil sharpeners hold only daily waste, are clean and odor-free.

Level 2 – Ordinary Tidiness

� 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 dust, dirt, stains, or streaks.

� All vertical and horizontal surfaces are clean, but marks, dust, smudges, and fingerprints are noticeable upon close observation. Lights all work and fixtures are clean.

� Washroom and shower fixtures and tile gleam and are odor-free. Supplies are adequate.


Level 3 – Casual Inattention

� Floors are swept or vacuumed clean, but upon close observation there can be stains. A buildup of dirt and/or floor finish in corners and along walls can be seen.

� There are dull spots and/or matted carpet in walking lanes. There are streaks or splashes on base molding.

� All vertical and horizontal surfaces have obvious dust, dirt, marks, smudges, and fingerprints. Lamps all work and fixtures are clean.


9 Custodial Staffing Guidelines for Educational Facilities, Second Edition. APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers, 1998, pp. 1-3


Level 4 – Moderate Dinginess

� Floors are swept or vacuumed clean, but are dull, dingy, and stained. There is a noticeable buildup of dirt and/or floor finish in corners and along walls.

� There is a dull path and/or obviously matted carpet in walking lanes. Base molding is dull and dingy with streaks or splashes.

� All vertical and horizontal surfaces have conspicuous dust, dirt, smudges, fingerprints, and marks. Lamp fixtures are dirty and some lamps (up to 5 percent) are burned out.

� Trash containers and pencil sharpeners have old trash and shavings. They are stained and marked. Trash containers smell sour.

Level 5 – Unkempt Neglect

� Floors and carpets are dull, dirty, dingy, scuffed, and/or matted. There is a conspicuous buildup of old dirt 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, all of which will be difficult to remove. Lack of attention is obvious.

� Light fixtures are dirty with dust balls and flies. Many lamps (more than 5 percent) are burned out.

� Trash containers and pencil sharpeners overflow. They are stained and marked. Trash containers smell sour.


Appendix 3 Huron Business Case for Custodial Supplies

Purdue UniversityStrategic Sourcing Project

Custodial Supplies – Paper Products Business CaseCustodial Supplies Working Group and Commodity Analysis

June 10th, 2010Not for Distribution

Confidential. Solely for the internal use of Purdue University. Not to be used or reproduced for other parties.

© Huron Consulting Group Inc. All rights reserved. Neither Huron Consulting Group Inc. nor any of its affiliates is a CPA firm. 1

Index

• Statement of Scope pg. 3Statement of Scope pg. 3

• Perspectives pg. 4

• Business Case pg. 6

• Savings Summary pg. 10g y pg

• Exhibit: Custodial Supplies Working Group Analysis pg. 11

• Exhibit: Custodial Category Spend Analysis pg. 16

• Suggested Strategy / Strategy Considerations pg. 21gg gy gy pg


2

Statement of Scope – Custodial Supplies

Scope Definition In-Scope Suppliers Implementation Lead

Analysis of quick-win strategic Purdue: E l b

Business Case Scope

y q gsourcing opportunity related to custodial paper supplies. Foundational analysis of all custodial supplies.

Huron:Acorn

EcolabHP ProductsFlex PacSpectrum

Purdue

Business Case Scope

PerspectivesIndustry perspectivesPurdue internal perspectives including regional campuses

Savings Analysis based on Huron ExperiencePricing savings opportunity - paperDemand management savings opportunity - paper

ImplementationBusiness Case Analysis

Contract compliance analysis as applicableSpend by manufacturer, product category, top itemsSupplier consolidation analysisP d t b h k

ImplementationSuggested next steps for Commodity group to continue effortsMeet with B. Noah to transition materials and conduct knowledge transfer on next steps

OtherPaper products benchmarksPaper products green opportunity

OtherCleansing and organization of Purdue internal custodial supplies analysis workbook


3

PerspectivesSpend AnalysisSpend Analysis

($'s in 000s)

Supplier AP P-Card Total

HP Products $1,200 $45 $1,245 $1,130

Purdue Est. Annual Spend Supplier Usage Data

Flex-Pac Inc 250 10 260 225Acorn Distributors Inc 245 - 245 285Spectrum Janitorial Supply 225 - 225 220Ecolab Inc 210 - 210 60

Subtotal $2,130 $55 $2,185 $1,920

Other (3)1 $225 - $225

Total $2,355 $55 $2,410 $1,920

Category spend is distributed across several suppliers


Category spend is distributed across several suppliers.

Source: Purdue University AP / P-Card data for the 12 months time period of 2/1/2009 – 1/31/2010. and Supplier Usage Reports for the time period 3/1/2009 - 2/28.2010 (Exception; Acorn Distributors, Inc. data for the period 7/31/2009 – 2/28/2010 ; 7 months)Note (1): Other includes additional Janitorial & Custodial vendors with smaller annual spend totals

4

PerspectivesIndustry and Purdue Internal

I d t P ti P d P ti

Industry and Purdue Internal

Industry PerspectivesCustodial Paper Products

• Consolidated market with few manufacturers and many distributors operating nationally, regionally and locally

Purdue Perspectives• Supplies are purchased both individually and

through Stores– Annual Stores supplies spend is ~$1M

• Janitorial paper products were competitively bidand locally

• Consumer demands for “Green” products growing due to increased environmental awareness and cost savings

– Quality and appearance of high recycled content d t i i ith i i d d d

• Janitorial paper products were competitively bid in the summer of 2009

– Joint effort between Purchasing and Housekeeping Committee with University Stores

– Acorn won the janitorial paper contract for Kimberly Clark products; majority of the Purdueproduct improving with increase in demand and

manufacturing technology

Other Custodial Supplies

• All major manufacturers offer environmental friendly “Green” products including liners

Kimberly Clark products; majority of the Purdue campus is standardized on KC products

– Prior to the bid event, HP Products was the supplier for both janitorial paper and liner products

• Spectrum has been liners supplier since 2008friendly Green products including liners, natural / organic cleaning chemicals, etc

Spectrum has been liners supplier since 2008, pricing held since 2009

• There is no current contract with HP Products– Estimated $800K in annual spend with HP

outside of paper products and liners


5

Business CaseAcorn Distributors Paper AnalysisAcorn Distributors Paper Analysis

Overview of Spend Shift: HP Products to Acorn Distributors, Inc

HP Products Acorn Distributors, Inc.($'s in 000s)

Annual % of

($'s in 000s)

C tEst. Annl.

Spend% of Spend

Category Spend Spend

Towels, Tissue & Seatcovers $280 99%All Other (5) 5 1%

Total $285 100%

Category Spend

Towels, Tissue & Seatcovers $245 22%Wastebaskets & Receptacles 175 16%Floor Finishes, Sealers, and Pads 105 9%Dilution Control Products 75 7%Trash Can Liners 75 6%

Top 5 Category Subtotal $675 59%

All Other (50) 460 41%

Total $1,135 100%


Source: Supplier usage reports submitted by HP Products for the time period 3/1/2009 – 2/28/2010 and Acorn Distributors, Inc for the time period 7/31/2009 –2/28/2010 (7 months)

6

Business CaseTop Items AnalysisTop Items Analysis

Top Spend ItemsManufacturer Unit of

MeasureEst. Annl.

QtyEst. Annl.

Spend% of

Spend

Scott® Hard Roll Towels, White Kimberly Clark CS 5,338 $257,040 53%Scott® 1-Ply Standard Bathroom Tissue Kimberly Clark CS 3,360 135,575 28%Scott® Multi-Fold Towels, White Kimberly Clark CS 1,851 31,195 6%Scott® Multi-Fold Towels, Natural Kimberly Clark CS 1,440 24,190 5%S tt® 1 Pl JRT J J b R ll Ti Ki b l Cl k CS 926 22 025 5%Scott® 1-Ply JRT Jr. Jumbo Roll Tissue Kimberly Clark CS 926 22,025 5%Scott® 2-Ply Embossed Bathroom Tissue Kimberly Clark CS 370 11,290 3%

Total $481,315 100%


Spend is relatively consolidated to six SKUs of varying size and recycled content.

7

Business CaseAcorn Top Products – Roll Towel Pricing AnalysisAcorn Top Products – Roll Towel Pricing Analysis

Description Current Product

$260K Est. Annual Spend

Manufacturer Kimberly ClarkProduct # KC 01000Brand Scott

Description High Capacity Hard Roll Towels White

0.50% - 1% 14% - 20%Like Item Opportunity Green Item Opportunity

Estimated Savings Opporutnity

Sheet Size 8" x 1'Sheets/Roll 1,000Rolls/Case 12Sheets/Case 12,000

Current Price/Case $48.15

Although Purdue receives competitive discounts for top Kimberly Clark products, many ‘greener’ opportunities


Price/1,000 Sheets $4.01


Source: Supplier usage reports submitted by Acorn Distributors, for the time period of 3/1/2009 – 2/28/2010 and Wisconsin, Utah, and Texas State Purchasing Contracts

exist for high spend and high volume janitorial paper products currently purchased.

8

Business CaseAcorn Top Products – Tissue Pricing AnalysisAcorn Top Products – Tissue Pricing Analysis

DescriptionCurrent Product

f C

$135K Est. Annual Spend

Manufacturer Kimberly ClarkProduct # KC 05102Brand Scott

Description Standard Roll Bathroom Tissue 1-Ply

Sheet Size 4 1" x 3 75"11% - 16% 18% - 21%

Estimated Savings Opporutnity

Like Item Opportunity Green Item Opportunity

Sheet Size 4.1" x 3.75"Sheets/Roll 1,210Rolls/Case 80Sheets/Case 96,800


Price/1,000 Sheets $4.17


Source: Supplier usage reports submitted by Acorn Distributors, for the time period of 3/1/2009 – 2/28/2010 and Wisconsin, Utah, Illinois, and New Jersey State Purchasing Contracts.

9

Savings Summary

Summary Observations

• Opportunity exists to achieve savings through

Additional bid opportunities

Low % - High % Low $ - High $Est. Annl.

Spend

Estimated Savings Opportunity RangeSavings Opportunity Description/Category

– Additional bid opportunities

– Potential product consolidation

– Movement to products with increased recycled content

Top Hand Roll Towel $257,040 1% - 20% $2,570 - $51,410Top Bath Tissue 135,575 7% - 21% 9,490 - 28,470Remaining Products 88,700 3% - 20% 2,660 - 17,740Liners TBD TBD - TBD TBD - TBD

Total $481 315 3% 20% $14 720 $97 620Total $481,315 3% - 20% $14,720 - $97,620


10

Exhibit: Custodial Supplies Working Group Analysis

11

Custodial Supplies Working Group Product List KeyProduct List Key

Category Order of "Finality"

Old Tab Color Description Focus Finality Color

Absolute 1 Red"Must-have" products, do not consolidate these items because utilization is non-negotiable at this time (i.e.: high gloss gym floor polish for TV) Yes

Continuing 2 YellowProduct functionalities are necessary, but they are 'price flexible' - will consider an alternative product of a lower price if functionalities can be met Yesproduct of a lower price if functionalities can be met

Green 3 GreenProduct functionalities are necessary, but they are 'price flexible' - will consider an alternative product of a lower price if functionalities can be met Yes

Opportunities 3 WhiteProducts that maybe further consolidated and move into the Red , Green , Yellow or Blue categories Yespp categories

Opportunities Orange 3 White

(Orange)Products that maybe further consolidated and move into the Red , Green , Yellow or Blue categories - as yet unable to confirm with an appropriate departmental representative Yes

Deferred 4 None Currently deferred products; not examining for consolidation opportunity at this timeDeferred 4 None Currently deferred products; not examining for consolidation opportunity at this time

Duplicate 5 Pink Duplicate products, already consolidated into the Red , Green , Yellow or Blue categories

Discontinued 5 BlueProducts that have been consolidated and will no longer be ordered by at the Stores after

Yes

Confidential. Solely for the internal use of Purdue University. Not to be used or reproduced for other parties. Source: Custodial Consolidation Committee Initiative, Product List as of 4/2009

12

Discontinued 5 Blue existing inventories are used up Yes

Custodial Supplies Working Group Product ListingProduct Listing

Original ColumnsHuron Added Columns

D t t P d t D i ti M f t Clean Manufacturer Di t ib t Cl Di t ib t Purchasing From O i i l T b UOM Qt Unit Ext UnitVendor Data

Department Product Description Manufacturer Clean Manufacturer

Manufacturer Product # Distributor Clean Distributor Purchasing From

(Assumed): Original Tab UOM Qty Unit Price

Ext Unit Price

UR Crew - Shower Disinfectant Johnson JohnsonDiversey HP HP Products HP Products AbsoluteDRS,UR,PMU,BS Voban Absorbent Miller & Sons Miller & Sons 111277 HP HP Products HP Products Absolute CS 9 $63.80 $574.20

Bid Can Liners 24x24 Black 8 micron 28 qt Pitt Pitt 140653 HP HP HP Products HP Products ContinuingDRS,PMU END BAC II Disenfectant (aerosol) Spartan Spartan 110492 HP HP Products HP Products Continuing CS 17 $56.90 $967.30PMU,UR Towels, white, non perferated roll 800';12/cs Kimberly Clarke Kimberly-Clark 01000-10 Gen Stores Unknown MMDC Continuing CS 3114 $48.15 $149,939.10

Ath GP Forward Johnson JohnsonDiversey 110736 H.P. Prodcuts HP Products Unknown Discontinued CS 13 $64.97 $844.61Ath Profi Johnson JohnsonDiversey 110314 H.P. Prodcuts HP Products Unknown DiscontinuedUR Lite & Foamy Sunflower Fresh Handsoap Spartan Spartan 3305 Flex Pac Flex-Pac MMDC Green PL 820 $36.14 $29,631.58

BS,DRS Aquaria Green Floor Finish Unknown 5120870 HP HP Products HP Products Green BX 707 $89.86 $63,531.02BS,DRS Spartan Green Stripper Spartan Spartan 350505 HP HP Products HP Products Green

Ath Feminine Napkin 37-120050 Playtex Playtex General Stores Unknown MMDC OpportunitiesAth Air Freshner Citrus Kimberly Clark Kimberly-Clark 114067 H.P. Prodcuts HP Products Unknown Opportunities CS 41 $55.59 $2,279.19UR #6 Softener - TESTING Spartan Spartan 8400120 Flex-Pac Flex-Pac Flex-Pac OpportunitiesAth Xlg Unknown 107516 H.P. Prodcuts HP Products Unknown Orange Opportunities BX 17 $6.49 $110.33VTH Window Cleaner Unknown MMDC Unknown MMDC Orange OpportunitiesMMDC Orange Opportunities

Combined original Custodial Consolidation Committee List into Excel workbook- Rank of items in order of 'Finality' for consolidation considered 'work in progress'

T k d d t f D i L d Mik Wilki d C t di l C itt i l

Huron Methodology

- Tracked updates from Denise Laussade, Mike Wilkins, and Custodial Committee using new columnsAdded new 'Clean' columns for consistency without making actual changes to dataCreated group of columns used to match data received directly from vendors to products on the list


Custodial Consolidation Committee Product List organized and analyzed by Huron, but Purdue must maintain in order to fully realize savings.

Source: Custodial Consolidation Committee Initiative, Product List as of 4/200913

Custodial Supplies Working Group Overlap of Manufacturers Across VendorsOverlap of Manufacturers Across Vendors

Overlap of Manufacturers Across Vendors # of Distributors on List

90

# of Consolidated List1 Productsby Distributor

DistributorEcolab Spartan Kimberly

ClarkPitt Hillyard Keating Other Total

Manufacturers

Overlap of Manufacturers Across Vendors # of Distributors on List

30

40

50

60

70

80

nsol

idat

ed L

ist P

rodu

cts

Distributor Clark

HP Products 1 17 5 6 48 77

Ecolab 32 32

Flex-Pac 8 8

Hillyard 5 1 6

Acorn 5 5

Keating 2 2

0

10

20

30

HP Products Ecolab Inc Unknown(2) Flex-Pac Inc Hillyard Other(3) Acorn Distributors

Inc

# of

Con

g

Edward Don 1 1

Other/Unknown* 2 3 2 1 22 30

Total 35 28 12 7 5 3 71 161

According to the Custodial Consolidation Committee Initiative Purdue purchases products from the same


Source: Custodial Consolidation Committee Initiative, Product List as of 4/2009Note (1): Consolidated List includes all vendors from Absolute, Continuing, Opportunities, and Green listsNote(2): 'Unknown' includes all items listed without a Distributor and/or as being "Distributed" by the Stores/MMDCNote(3): 'Other' includes Keating, Edward Don, SVM Central Supply, Chemco, and Gaylord Inc

According to the Custodial Consolidation Committee Initiative, Purdue purchases products from the same manufacturers across different vendors, providing an opportunity for vendor consolidation.

14

Custodial Supplies Working Group SKU Proliferation AnalysisSKU Proliferation Analysis

# f % fProduct Category # of SKUs

% of Spend

Wastebaskets & Receptacles 68 16%•••

Rubbermaid Commercial Products Safco Products Co Toter Incorporated

Example Manufacturers

p

Floor Finishes & Sealers 26 8%•••

3M Commercial Products Johnson-Diversey Spartan Chemical Co Inc

Dilution Control Products 32 7% ••

Johnson-DiverseySpartan Chemical Co Incp

Trash Can Liners 39 6% ••

Medical Action Industries Pitt Plastics Inc

Bowl & Restroom Cleaners 19 5%

•••

3M Commercial ProductsJohnson-Diversey Spartan Chemical Co Inc

Large number of SKUs from various manufacturers are observed for majority of the product categories

•p

Claire Manufacturing


Large number of SKUs from various manufacturers are observed for majority of the product categories, demonstrating the extent of product non-standardization.

Source: Supplier usage reports submitted by HP Products, for the time period of 3/1/2009 – 2/28/2010.15

Exhibit: Custodial Category Spend Analysis

16

Custodial Spend AnalysisSpend by General Product CategoriesSpend by General Product Categories

($'s in 000s)

HPCategory

HP Products Acorn Spectrum Flex Pac Ecolab Total

Towels, Tissue & Seatcovers $245 $280 $ - $ - $ - $525Trash Can Liners 75 - 190 25 - 290Wastebaskets & Receptacles 175 - - 15 - 190Floor Finishes Sealers and Pads 105 45 150Floor Finishes, Sealers, and Pads 105 - - 45 - 150

Top 4 Subtotal $600 $280 $190 $85 $ - $1,155

All Other (50+) $535 < $5 $30 $135 $60 $760

Total $1,135 $280 $220 $220 $60 $1,915

Towels, Tissue & Seatcovers

Trash Can Liners

Wastebaskets & Receptacles

Floor Finishes, Sealers, and Pads

All Other (50+)


Source: Purdue University AP / P-Card data for the 12 months time period of 2/1/2009 – 1/31/2010. and Supplier Usage Reports for the time period 3/1/2009 - 2/28.2010 (Exception; Acorn Distributors, Inc. data for the period 7/31/2009 – 2/28/2010 ; 7 months)Note (1): Other includes additional Janitorial & Custodial vendors with smaller annual spend totals

17

Purdue University spends approximately $500K annually on janitorial paper products and $175K on trash can liners; both commodities are expected to be rebid in 2010.

Custodial Spend AnalysisVendor Spend by Top Items (1 of 2)Vendor Spend by Top Items (1 of 2)

HP Products


Measure Quantity Unit Price

Total Price

% Vendor Spend

Scott® Hard Roll Towels, White Kimberly Clark CS 2,617 $39 $102,809 9%Aquaria Floor Finish Johnson BX 707 90 63,531 6%Scott® 1-Ply Standard Bathroom Tissue Kimberly Clark CS 1 552 40 62 670 6%Scott® 1 Ply Standard Bathroom Tissue Kimberly Clark CS 1,552 40 62,670 6%Wastebasket Recyclying Side Bin Rubbermaid EA 6,144 4 25,866 2%Deskside Recycling Container Rubbermaid EA 5,919 4 20,894 2%

Total $275,770 24%

Flex-Pac Inc



Total Price

% Vendor Spend

Lite 'N Fresh Foamy Sunflower Fresh Soap Spartan CS 820 $36 $29,632 13%Germicidial Bowl Cleanse Spartan CS 1,295 13 17,119 8%Di d C t l G I M lt C ill S lt C BG 2 352 7 15 755 7%Flex Pac Inc Diamond Crystal Green Ice Melt Cargill Salt Co BG 2,352 7 15,755 7%Dome-Litter Litter Container Toter Inc EA 56 261 14,618 6%Terra Glaze Floor Sealer Spartan PL 253 51 12,785 6%

Total $89,909 40%


Source: Supplier Usage Reports for the time period 3/1/2009 - 2/28.2010

18

Custodial Spend AnalysisVendor Spend by Top Items (2 of 2)Vendor Spend by Top Items (2 of 2)



Total Price

% Vendor Spend

S tt® H d R ll T l Whit Ki b l Cl k CS 3 114 $48 $149 939 53%

Acorn Distributors IncScott® Hard Roll Towels, White Kimberly Clark CS 3,114 $48 $149,939 53%Scott® 1-Ply Standard Bathroom Tissue Kimberly Clark CS 1,960 40 79,086 28%Scott® Multi-Fold Towels, White Kimberly Clark CS 1,080 17 18,198 6%Scott® Multi-Fold Towels, Natural Kimberly Clark CS 840 17 14,112 5%Scott® 1-Ply JRT Jr. Jumbo Roll Tissue Kimberly Clark CS 540 24 12,847 5%

Total $274,182 96%

Spectrum Janitorial Supply



Total Price

% Vendor Spend

Trash Can Liner 39x46 N/A CS 4,880 $27 $132,736 60%Trash Can Liner 41x54 N/A CS 792 27 21,186 10%Trash Can Liner 33x40 N/A CS 1,395 10 13,736 6%Trash Can Liner 38x58 N/A CS 508 18 9,073 4%Trash Can Liner 30x57 N/A CS 360 19 6,823 3%

Total $183,554 83%

M f Unit of Q i Unit Total % Vendor

Ecolab Distributors

Top Spend Items Manufacturer Unit of Measure Quantity Unit

PriceTotal Price

% Vendor Spend

Laundry Dry Bleach N/A N/A 98 $64 $6,303 10%Tristar Surlite Cleaner N/A N/A 67 27 5,784 9%Apex Power Plus Detergent N/A N/A 62 10 4,654 8%Laudry Brite N/A N/A 97 18 4,630 8%Tristar So Fresh N/A N/A 48 19 3 156 5%


Source: Supplier Usage Reports for the time period 3/1/2009 - 2/28.2010 (Exception; Acorn Distributors, Inc. data for the period 7/31/2009 – 2/28/2010 ; 7 months)

Tristar So Fresh N/A N/A 48 19 3,156 5%

Total $24,527 40%

19

Custodial Spend AnalysisStores Data AnalysisStores Data Analysis

VendorTotal Order

QtyTotal Stores Cost of

Goods SoldTotal Stores Selling

Price

Acorn Dists 23,112 $506,643 $575,039Spectrum Janitorial Supply 13,557 $231,503 $262,756Flex-Pac Inc 11,791 $139,226 $158,021HP Prod Corp 13,029 $127,262 $144,442Ecolab Inc 303 $15,615

Total 61,792 $1,020,250 $1,140,259


20

Source: Stores Reports for the time period 3/1/2009 - 2/28.2010

Suggested Strategy / Strategy ConsiderationsConsideration Needed

None Moderate

Supplier Suggested Strategy

Minimal High

C id tiCustodial Supplies

• Supplier Suggested Strategy– Conduct RFP for paper products and trash can

liners as recommended by Commodity Group

• Other Suggested Strategy

Consideration

Change Management

Adoption of greener products may require change management

Implementation RFP process is standard• Other Suggested Strategy– Continue working group efforts to identify

consolidation opportunities based on supplier data

– Identify “maverick purchasing”

Complexity RFP process is standard

“Green” Impact Potential for increased utilization of green products

Di it S li P t ti l i t t i di it li• Spend off contract• Spend through inefficient purchasing

channels

Diversity Supplier Impact

Potential exists to increase diversity supplier utilization

Technology -

Savings Opportunity

Central Recovery-

Upfront $ Investment Required

-


21

Required

Estimated Annual Savings $15K - $100K


Appendix 4 Consolidated Equipment List

Dept Equipment Manufacturer Model Vendor Price Annual NeedATH 14" Versamatic Vacuum Windsor Sensor XP H.P.Products 389.00$ 10ATH 15" Versmatic Vacuum Windsor Sensor XP H.P.Products 473.00$ 2ATH 17" High speed Buffer HP 485436HP H.P.Products 904.00$ ATH 17" scrubber advance Spectrum 940.00$ 3VTH 17" Scrubber pads H.P. ProductsATH 18" Versamatic Vacuum Windsor Sensor XP H.P.Products 589.00$ 8ATH 20" high speed buffer Mustang Spectrum 1,250.00$ 3ATH 4 foot dust brooms ?? 6ATH 4 foot Scafolding unit Menadrs 240.00$ 1DRS 6" Batt. Motor Srub. Hp ProductsATH Advance Aqua Extractor Advance 12ST H.P.Products 1,408.00$ 1ATH Back Pack Vacuum Super Coach W/101336 A H.P.Products 412.00$ 7UR Battery Charger Clarke unspecifiedDRS Battery Charger Clarke unspecifiedUR Battery Charger Minutemen International MinutemenUR Battery Charger Nilfisk‐Advance, Inc. unspecifiedUR Battery Charger Nobles MACDRS Battery Charger Nobles unspecifiedUR Battery Charger NSS unspecifiedBS Battery Charger unspecified Lestronic Alto $435 1ATH bonnet pads H.P.Products ?? 12

Consolidated Equipment List ‐ as of March 24, 2010

BS Box Fan Lakewood Lakewood Walmart, Ace Hardw $18ATH broom rubbermaid H.P.Products ?? 20VTH Brooms H.P. ProductsVCS Brooms Ace HardwareUR Burnisher, Cord Clarke Ultraspeed 2000UR Burnisher, Cord Clarke 1500PMU Burnisher, Cord Clarke 1000DRS Burnisher, Cord Clarke Hp ProductsDRS Burnisher, Cord Clarke Hp ProductsUR Burnisher, Cord Nobles‐Tennant Company 1500 cordUR Burnisher, Cord NSS Enterprises Inc 1500 cordPMU Burnisher, Cord SwiftBS Burnisher, cord Clarke Ultraspeed 2000 Alto $1,050 1PMU Burnisher, Rider Advance Whirlamatic 2700 HP Products 9,357.87$ BS Burnisher, riding WINDSOR 20" Riding Chariot H.P. Products $8,735 1UR Burnisher, Walk Behind Clarke Fusion 201X WBUR Burnisher, Walk Behind Nilfisk‐Advance, Inc. 2000 WB

Dept Equipment Manufacturer Model Vendor Price Annual NeedUR Burnisher, Walk Behind NSS Enterprises Inc 2000 WBBS Burnisher, WB Clarke Fusion 20ix WB Alto $4,382 2DRS C‐2 Machine C‐2 Restroom cleaner Hillyard 1,045.00$ ATH C‐3 unit hillyard Hillyard 1,250.00$ 3BS Carpet Extractor Clarke Clean Track 18 Alto $2,153 1ATH carpet extractor small Nilifisk‐Adavacne A‐12ST H.P.Products 1,408.00$ 5UR Carpet Extractors Castex CommodoreUR Carpet Extractors Clarke BEXT 150H Flex Pak 2,205.88$ UR Carpet Extractors Clarke Alto Carpet ExtractoDRS Carpet Extractors Clarke BEXT 150H Alto US INC. 1,525.00$ UR Carpet Extractors Clarke BEXT150H AnserPMU Carpet Extractors Tennant R3 Hillyard 2,600.25$ PMU Carpet Extractors Windsor CommodorePMU Carpet Extractors Windsor PassportUR Carpet Extractors Windsor BS Carpet Fan Clarke Direct Air 3 Alto $199 4PMU Carpet Fans Advance HydrodryPMU Carpet Fans Air KingUR Carpet Fans AltoPMU Carpet Fans CastexUR Carpet Fans ClarkeUR Carpet Fans Clarke Direct Air DLXUR Carpet Fans HescoUR Carpet Fans HescoUR Carpet Fans Tornado WindshearPMU Carpet Fans ViperUR Carpet Maintainers Tennant Ready R3 HillyardBS Carpet Shampooer Clarke BEXT 150H Alto $1,799BS Carpet Spotter Clarke BEXTSpot Alto $531PMU Carpet Spotters Castex AnserUR Carpet Spotters Clarke BEXT with upholstery tools Spectrum 610.00$ BS Cleaning Tank Ultrasonics International CorpUltrasonics manufacturer direct $14,995ATH Club Car w/Ambulance Carryall 6 J0503‐474106 Thermo King 7,931.00$ 1VTH Counter Brush H.P. ProductsATH Court Clean System Hillard Hillyard 440.00$ 2BS Desk Mover Raymond Products Co. unspecified unknown unkVTH Doodle Bug Scrubber head & Pads 3M H.P. ProductsBS Drill DeWalt Electric Lafayette Hardware $100VTH Dust Mops Direct Mop SalesVTH Dust Pans H.P. ProductsBS Electric Cart Taylor Dunn unspecified unknown unk

Dept Equipment Manufacturer Model Vendor Price Annual NeedATH Electric Pallet Jack Big Joe PTE‐30 LAMMCO 3,250.00$ 1BS Eraser Cleaner Little Giant Pump Company Little Giant Economy Plus $463BS Flood Pumper Crusader M1050‐30P Economy Plus $1,330ATH floor dryers Windsor H.P.Products 350.00$ 4UR Floor Fans AdvanceUR Floor Fans Air King Floor fanUR Floor Fans Castex Hurricane Floor FanUR Floor Fans CFR 3 speed 3 speed, on wheels, long hdl HP 240.00$ DRS Floor Fans Dayton 48 inch drum GraingerUR Floor Fans Viper Hydrodry FanATH FLOOR MACHINE ADVENGER2810D 823801 NILFISK 9,445.00$ 1ATH FLOOR MACHINE CHARIOT CV28 1000157498 CLARKE 9,545.00$ 1UR Floor Pumpers CASTEX‐NOBLESUR Floor Pumpers Crusader M1050‐30‐PUMPATH FLOOR SCRUBBER Windsor 1E+11 chariot 8,194.00$ 1ATH FLOOR SCRUBBER,CONVERTAMATIC 240 LX 1153921 ADVANCE 2,530.00$ 3ATH Genie Lift Tynan 1582‐1254 Tynan Co. ?? 1ATH Hand cart 2 wheel ?? 4ATH Icapsol Mini delux Carpet care Windsor H.P.Products 1,701.00$ 1ATH Kyvac Restroom cleaner hillyard ?? 2BS Leaf Blower TORO Toro Riggs Outdoor PoweunkPMU Leaf Blowers Toro Super Vac n' Mulch MenardsUR Leaf Blowers Various VariousUR Leaf Blowers Various VariousBS Liquid Ice Melt sprayer Ossian Ossian LS Supply Warehouse $600ATH lobby dust pans rubbermaid H.P.Products ?? 24ATH Magna Twin 2600 Windsor H.P.Products 2,600.00$ 1ATH Mop Buckets rubbermaid 7577‐88‐Y H.P.Products 90.00$ 20ATH NSS Wrangler 20" Scrubber NSS 2302022 Spectrum 4,897.00$ 1ATH Pallet Jack HHt6000 LAMMCO 236.00$ 3VTH Plunger H.P. ProductsDRS Pool Hand VacATH POWER SWEEPER 32 HP/528 TENNANT 18,000.00$ 1ATH POWER SWEEPER/vacuum 00240 TENNANT 18,000.00$ 1ATH Power Washer ?? 1DRS Pressure Washers ColemanUR Pressure Washers KarcherPMU Restroom Cleaner Hillyard C2 HillyardUR Restroom Cleaner Nilfisk‐Advance, Inc. reel cleanBS Restroom Cleaner Hillyard, Inc. C‐3‐w/vacuum Hillyard $1,490 1BS Restroom Cleaner Nilfisk‐Advance, Inc. reel clean H.P Products $3,300 2

Dept Equipment Manufacturer Model Vendor Price Annual NeedVTH Riding Floor Scrubber Advance H.P. ProductsDRS Robotic Pool VacATH Rubbermaid janitor cart rubbermaid 9T72‐BLA H.P.Products 162.00$ 12VCS Scoop shovels MenardsATH SCRUBBER 240 LX 1168002 ADVANCE 1,623.00$ 1ATH SCRUBBER 241 LX 1168003 ADVANCE 1,869.00$ 1ATH SCRUBBER 242 LX 1168004 ADVANCE 3,018.00$ 1DRS Scrubber Clarke 28 inch Clarke 4,200.00$ DRS Scrubber Noble 24 & 28 inch HP ProductsDRS Scrubber Tennent EcH20 28 inch Hillyard 9,110.00$ BS Scrubber, cord Clarke 17" cord Alto $563 1BS Scrubber, grout TORNADO or BREUER/TORNATornado vario speed Spectrum $1,824PMU Scrubber, Rider Windsor Chariot i‐scrub Hillyard 10,370.00$ BS Scrubber, riding WINDSOR iScrub 20 H.P. Products $5,466 1BS Scrubber, WB Clarke Focus II L20 Alto $4,326 1BS Scrubber, WB Clarke Focus II BOOST L20 Alto $4,398 2ATH SCRUBBER,FLOOR 240LX 1204799 ADVANCE 5,000.00$ 1ATH SCRUBBER,FLOOR 240LX 1204800 ADVANCE 1,511.00$ 1UR Scrubbers Autoscrubber 4,600.67$ UR Scrubbers Clarke Focus II Boost 20" SpectrumPMU Scrubbers Clarke Maintainer 2000UR Scrubbers Nilfisk‐Advance, Inc. 13" cordUR Scrubbers Nobles Tennant Company Matador 20" cordUR Scrubbers Nobles‐Tennant Company Matador 20" cordPMU Scrubbers, Walk Behind Advance Micro‐matic 17B HP Products 3,325.00$ UR Scrubbers, Walk Behind Clarke Walk BehindUR Scrubbers, Walk Behind Clarke WB 20" BoostPMU Scrubbers, Walk Behind Minuteman 380Scrub Com Schniable Supply 6,523.00$ UR Scrubbers, Walk Behind Nilfisk‐Advance, Inc. 2000WBUR Scrubbers, Walk Behind Nobles‐Tennant Company 3800PMU Scrubbers, Walk Behind NSS Wrangler 33UR Scrubbers, Walk Behind NSS Enterprises Inc unspecifiedATH shower foamer spartin ?? 3UR Snow Blower JOHN DEERE 2 stage, 28", #928E Holt Equipment 1,349.00$ UR Snow Blower SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO. craftsman 1 stage, 2 cycleUR Snow Blower TORO 1 stage, 2 cyclePMU Snow Blower Toro Powerlite EBS Snowblower TORO 1 stage 4 cycle Riggs Outdoor Powe $580BS Snowblower TORO 2 stage 4 cycle Riggs Outdoor Powe $1,256 1ATH SWEEPER/EXTRACTOR AQUARIDE NILFISK 10,000.00$ 1ATH T‐5 floor scubber Tenant T‐5 TNT9002559 Hillyard 6,785.00$ 2

Dept Equipment Manufacturer Model Vendor Price Annual NeedATH Tidy Vacuum tidy vac ?? 2ATH tilt trucks/Garbage rubbermaid Grainger 513.00$ 8ATH Tong/trash pick‐up H.P.Products ?? 10BS Tractor Unspecified‐ to haul trash to dumpsters unknown unkBS Trailer Taylor Dunn unspecified unknown unkBS vacuum, other Clarke BSW 28‐Walk behind Alto $2,089BS Vacuum, Portable Sandia Plastic (Sandia Hipster DP Hipster Economy Plus $296BS Vacuum, upright Windsor Sensor 14 H.P. Products $410 7BS Vacuum, upright Windsor Axcess 15 H.P. Products $324BS Vacuum, Wet/Dry Clarke Summit 20 Alto $415 2DRS Vacuums, Back Pack Advance Hp Products 200.00$ UR Vacuums, Back Pack Back pack vacuums Comfort Pak10 Spectrum 279.35$ UR Vacuums, Back Pack Hoover Model #53509PMU Vacuums, Back Pack KentUR Vacuums, Back Pack Proteam Magavac 10065DRS Vacuums, Canister Advance Hp Products UR Vacuums, Upright Advance Model 56648091PMU Vacuums, Upright Advance Carpetwin 14 Hillyard 385.00$ 2PMU Vacuums, Upright Advance Power One 15 HP ProductsDRS Vacuums, Upright Electrolux 600.00$ UR Vacuums, Upright Kent 16" HPPMU Vacuums, Upright Nobles ViperDRS Vacuums Upright Proteam 1500XP Hillyard 344 00$DRS Vacuums, Upright Proteam 1500XP Hillyard 344.00$ UR Vacuums, Upright Windsor Versamatic VSE 1‐3 HP 623.00$ UR Vacuums, Upright Windsor Flexamatic HP#119624 HPUR Vacuums, Upright Windsor SRS12 #119609(student use) HP 377.11$ UR Vacuums, Upright Windsor VSP14 (for staff) HP 532.00$ PMU Vacuums, Upright Windsor Sensor X15 HP Products 397.23$ DRS Vacuums, Upright Windsor Versamatic VSE 1‐3 HP 623.00$ UR Vacuums, UprightUR Vacuums, Wet/Dry ClarkeUR Vacuums, Wet/Dry Clarke Summit 20UR Vacuums, Wet/Dry Clarke Clarke 50DRS Vacuums, Wet/Dry Clarke Summit 20PMU Vacuums, Wet/Dry Minuteman Schniable SupplyPMU Vacuums, Wet/Dry Nobles Typhoon EVUR Vacuums, Wet/Dry Nobles‐Tennant Company unspecifiedUR Vacuums, Wet/Dry NSS Enterprises Inc TyphoonPMU Vacuums, Wet/Dry Tennant 3500 Hillyard 560.25$ 1ATH Viber Up right vacuum Viper ?? 1

Dept Equipment Manufacturer Model Vendor Price Annual NeedVCS Wall Scrubber Ace HardwareATH Wet Floor Signs 3m H.P.Products 69.00$ 18ATH Wet Mops rubbermaid H.P.Products ?? 20VTH Wet Mops Direct Mop SalesATH wet mops micro fiber rubbermaid 12.50$ 30VTH Wet Vac Advance H.P. ProductsATH Wet Vac Sprite Air Spectrum 490.00$ 6ATH Windsor mimi pro extractor Windsor H.P.Products 1,400.00$ 1


Appendix 5 APPA Detailed Analysis by Area

Building Services Space Cleaned & APPA Standards

APPA APPAGoal Goal FTE

APPA CategoriesSquare Footage by

CategoryLevel 1

Minimum Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5Washrooms* 75,024 38.18 29.18 29.18 29.18 29.18 2 29.18Washrooms (High Use)*# 61,808 62.44 46.08 46.08 46.08 46.08 2 46.08Classrooms 40,956 4.62 2.41 1.50 1.21 1.07 2-3 1.95Classrooms (High Use)# 807,689 169.63 83.53 78.78 38.49 35.24 2-3 81.15Libraries 340,777 19.07 9.24 4.75 3.20 2.69 2-3 6.99Labs 1,311,248 140.30 75.45 49.62 29.00 6.46 2-3 62.54Public Areas 1,341,328 176.15 62.75 41.29 32.23 29.45 2-3 52.02Offices 1,863,819 195.33 114.53 66.90 48.33 36.09 2-3 90.71Auditoriums 104,324 18.24 7.46 3.20 1.55 0.26 2-3 5.33Store Rooms 255,827 3.34 1.23 0.65 0.14 0.08 2-3 0.94Gymnasiums 42,024 2.17 1.06 0.50 0.16 0.04 2-3 0.78Stairways 273,714 36.31 18.14 15.67 11.15 3.63 2-3 16.90TOTALS (Cleanable sq ft) 6,518,538 865.78 451.07 338.12 240.75 190.26 394.59

Supervision @ 18:1 48.10 25.06 18.78 13.37 10.57 21.92Vacation/SL/Holiday/FMLA @ 217 hrs/year 90.47 47.14 35.33 25.16 19.88 41.23

Total FTE Required 1004.36 523.26 392.23 279.28 220.72 457.75

Current FTE 2009-10 Budget 307.50 307.50 307.50 307.50 307.50 307.50

* Washroom care does not go below Level 2# Classroom use: 40 + occupancy and > 30 hrs/week, Washroom use: first floor, heavy traffic / public areas.

University Residences Custodial Data

SMAS SMAS APPA APPA APPA LEVELS APPA GOALCategory SQ FT Category GOAL 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency AVERAGEMECHANICAL 227,896 Storeroom 3‐4 2.96 1.09 0.58 0.12 0.07 BM 0.35MEETING 6,868 Classroom-Hard 1‐2 0.81 0.41 0.26 0.17 0.15 BM 0.61

3.77 1.50 0.84 0.30 0.22

MERCH SRV 2,067 Utility 2‐3 0.50 0.38 0.21 0.12 0.05 D 0.29CIRCULATE 709,085 Public/Hard 1‐2 94.54 34.59 23.25 18.47 16.96 D 64.57COMM BATH 87,517 Wash/Heavy 1‐2 87.52 67.32 67.32 67.32 67.32 D 77.42CONFERENCE 14,635 Classroom-Hard 1‐2 1.72 0.88 0.55 0.37 0.32 D 1.30DEPT COMMONS 6,265 Dormitory Lounge 1‐2 1.20 0.72 0.35 0.15 0.05 D 0.96DINING 105,994 Cafeteria/Hard 1‐2 9.46 6.46 6.46 6.46 6.46 D 7.96FOOD SERV 83,295 Utility 1‐2 20.32 15.14 8.50 4.71 1.82 D 17.73LOUNGE 83,420 Dormitory Lounge 1‐2 16.04 9.59 4.69 1.94 0.61 D 12.82MERCHANDISE 8,694 Utility 1‐2 2.12 1.58 0.89 0.49 0.19 D 1.85OFFICE 53,430 Office-Hard 1‐2 6.36 3.66 2.13 1.48 1.08 D 5.01RECREATION 70,126 Dormitory Lounge 1‐2 13.49 8.06 3.94 1.63 0.51 D 10.77RESID SRV 234,057 Utility 1‐2 57.09 42.56 23.88 13.22 5.12 D 49.82REST ROOM 16,497 Washroom 1‐2 8.25 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 D 7.30STUDY 29,689 Dormitory Lounge 1‐2 5.71 3.41 1.67 0.69 0.22 D 4.56

324.33 200.69 150.19 123.40 107.06

APART SRV 51,600 Utility 2‐3 12.59 9.38 5.27 2.92 1.13 M 7.32APART SRV 51,600 Utility 2 3 12.59 9.38 5.27 2.92 1.13 M 7.32CENT STORAGE 37,063 Storeroom 3‐4 0.48 0.18 0.09 0.02 0.01 M 0.06LOUNGE SV 746 Utility 2‐3 0.18 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.02 M 0.11OFF SERV 9,624 Utility 2‐3 2.35 1.75 0.98 0.54 0.21 M 1.37RECR SERV 1,363 Utility 3‐4 0.33 0.25 0.14 0.08 0.03 M 0.11SHOP 20,482 Utility 3‐4 5.00 3.72 2.09 1.16 0.45 M 1.62SHOP SERVICE 3,697 Utility 3‐4 0.90 0.67 0.38 0.21 0.08 M 0.29VEHIC SRV 355 Utility 3‐4 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 M 0.03

21.91 16.15 9.06 4.98 1.93

RESID RM 790,558 Dorm Sleep/Study 1‐2 202.71 192.82 98.82 42.28 32.01 Q 197.76APARTMENT 685,769 Dorm Sleep/Study 1‐2 175.84 167.26 85.72 36.67 27.76 Q 171.55RESID W BATH 259,074 Dorm Sleep/Study 1‐2 66.43 63.19 32.38 13.85 10.49 Q 64.81

444.97 423.27 216.93 92.80 70.267.12 6.77 3.47 1.48 1.12 6.95

CEN COMPUTER 1,087 Utility 2‐3 0.27 0.20 0.11 0.06 0.02 W 0.15APARTMENT Bath 4,262 Dormitory Washroom 1‐2 2.84 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 W 2.60BLDG SERV 7,492 Utility 2‐3 1.83 1.36 0.76 0.42 0.16 W 1.06CONF SERV 252 Utility 2‐3 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 W 0.04RECEIVING 2,842 Storeroom 2‐3 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 W 0.01Resid Bath 40,725 Dormitory Washroom 1‐2 27.15 22.63 22.63 22.63 22.63 W 24.89STUDY SRV 215 Utility 2‐3 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.005 W 0.03

32.23 26.65 25.92 25.51 25.19

Total Adjusted With Q adjustment 389.36 251.76 189.47 155.68 135.53 309.96

Total Without Q adjustment 827.22 668.26 402.93 246.99 204.66 737.14

Supervision 18:1 using Quarterly Adjustment 21.63 13.99 10.53 8.65 7.53 17.22

Vacation/SL/FMLA/Holiday @ 217 hrs/year 40.69 26.31 19.80 16.27 14.16 32.39


Current Staff 2009‐10 Budget 244.80 244.80 244.80 244.80 244.80 244.80

APPA Levels APPASMAS Room Classification Description APPA Category Square Footage APPA Level 1 2 3 4 Goal FTE

Purdue Memorial Union012 Restrooms (standard‐2,211/deluxe‐1,808) ** Washroom Heavy Use 4,489 2 4.53 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35020 Circulation ( stairways & corridors) Public‐Circulation‐Hard 49,900 2 6.65 2.43 1.64 1.30 2.43

Locker Rooms Locker Room w/o shower 2,614 2 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22310 Office 18387 2

Carpet 8,119 2 0.85 0.45 0.25 0.15 0.45Hard 10,268 2 1.22 0.71 0.41 0.29 0.71

620 Exhibit (Ringel Gallery) Classroom‐carpet 1,399 2 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06630 Dining ** Cafeteria‐Hard 22,985 2 2.05 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40635 Food Service (Kitchens & Restaurants) Utility 33,458 2 8.13 6.07 3.43 1.89 6.07650 Lounge Dormitory‐Lounge 8,813 2 1.69 1.02 0.49 0.21 1.02660 Merchandise (UPS & The Purdue Shop) Office Carpet 2,042 2 0.21 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.11670 Recreation Public‐carpet 6,255 2 0.35 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.15680 Meeting Classroom‐carpet 9,533 2 * 0.98 0.44 0.40 0.28 0.44

Meeting Classroom‐hard 3,644 2 0.78 0.38 0.36 0.17 0.38681 Meeting/Banquet Gymnasium‐wood 14,479 2 0.84 0.40 0.18 0.06 0.40

Meeting/Banquet Classroom‐carpet 1,916 2 0.20 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.09Total 179,914 28.86 17.28 12.44 9.52 17.28

Union Club Hotel012 Restrooms ** Washroom Heavy Use 3,421 2 3.42 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.63020 Circulation Public‐Circulation‐Hard 19,213 2 2.56 0.94 0.63 0.50 0.94310 Office Carpet 1,191 2 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.07650 Lounge ( Lobby & employee area) Dormitory Lounge 4,242 2 0.82 0.49 0.24 0.10 0.49660 Merchandise ( vending rooms) Vending 218 2 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

Purdue Union and Stewart Center

922 Guest Room ** Dormitory‐sleep + study 39,091 1 10.02 9.53 4.89 2.09 10.02Guest Room Bath Dormitory Washroom 12,805 1‐2 8.54 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.83Resid Service Storeroom 4,306 2 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.002 0.02Laundry Utility 3,314 2 0.81 0.60 0.34 0.19 0.60Total 87,801 26.39 21.41 15.90 12.66 22.61

Stewart Center660 Merchandise ( Newsstand) Vending 1,012 2 0.21 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.09680 Meeting Classroom‐carpet 26,023 2 * 2.68 1.20 1.08 0.75 1.20

Meeting Classroom‐hard 5,461 2 1.17 0.57 0.54 0.26 0.57Total 32,496 4.06 1.86 1.69 1.07 1.86

Totals 300,211 59.31 40.55 30.03 23.25 41.75

Supervision @ 18:1 3.29 2.25 1.67 1.29 2.32

Vacation/Sick Leave/Holiday/FMLA @ 217 hrs/year 6.20 4.24 3.14 2.43 4.36

Total FTE Required 68.80 47.04 34.84 26.97 48.43

Current FTE 2009‐10 Budget 31.00 31.00 31.00 31.00 31.00Union Club 13.00 + PMU/STEW 18.00= 31.00 FTE

* ‐ Trustee space in both PMU & STEW are kept at APPA level 1

Athletic Space Cleaned & APPA Standards

SMAS APPA APPA Levels APPA APPASMAS Category SQ FT Category 1 2 3 4 5 Goal Goal FTE310 OFFICE 26,698 Office Carpet 2.78 1.47 0.83 0.50 0.31 1 2.78315 OFF SERV 3,678 Utility 0.90 0.67 0.38 0.21 0.08 3 0.38317 DEPT COMMONS 1,094 Utility 0.27 0.20 0.11 0.06 0.02 3 0.11350 CONFERENCE 1,902 Class Carpet High Use 0.37 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.10 1 0.37410 STUDY 1,458 Class Carpet High Use 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.08 1 0.29520 ATHLETIC 27,447 Public Hard Floor 3.66 1.34 0.90 0.71 0.66 2 1.34Lambert Fieldhouse Flr 48,979 Public‐carpet 2.77 1.21 0.92 0.61 0.52 2 1.21Tennis Courts‐SCHW 39,416 Public‐carpet 2.23 0.98 0.74 0.49 0.42 2 0.98MOLL Turf 92,476 IAF & MACK 28,943 Gymnasium 1.67 0.79 0.36 0.11 0.03 2 0.79523 ATHL SEATING 74,160 Gymnasium 4.29 2.03 0.92 0.29 0.07 3 0.92Stadium‐suites/Shively 21,476 Auditorium Seating 3.77 1.53 0.66 0.32 0.05 2 1.53525 ATHL SERV 85,804 Utility 20.93 15.60 8.76 4.85 1.88 3 8.76Restrooms 6,203 Washroom‐High Use 6.20 4.77 4.77 4.77 4.77 1 6.20Locker Rooms 9,968 Locker/Changing 0.84 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 1 0.84Shower Rooms 4,330 Shower Room 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 1 0.83530 MEDIA PROD 4,894 Utility 1.19 0.89 0.50 0.28 0.11 3 0.50535 MEDIA SRV 4,407 Utility 1.07 0.80 0.45 0.25 0.10 3 0.45

f i

athletic_appa.xlsx 6/14/2010

630 DINING 6,719 Cafeteria‐Carpet 0.68 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 1 0.68650 LOUNGE 14,545 Lounge 2.80 1.67 0.82 0.34 0.11 2 1.67680 MEETING 2,055 Class Carpet 0.21 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 2 0.13Floor/hallway 50,400 Public Hard Floor 6.72 2.46 1.65 1.31 1.21 2 2.46Mechanical 35,232 Storeroom 0.46 0.17 0.09 0.02 0.01 3 0.09

Totals 592,284 64.93 39.07 25.32 17.53 12.74 33.32

Supervision: 18:1 3.61 2.17 1.41 0.97 0.71 1.85

Vacation/SL/FMLA/Holiday @217 hrs/year 6.78 4.08 2.65 1.83 1.33 3.48


Current FTE 2009‐10 Budget 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00

NOTE‐this does not reflect students and outside personnel utlized for cleaning the stadium other than space indicated as such.

athletic_appa.xlsx 6/14/2010

DRS Custodial Services Data (RSC & Aquatics)

SMAS SMAS APPA APPA Levels APPA APPACategory Sg FT Category 1 2 3 4 5 Goal Goal FTEBuilding Service 834 Utility 0.20 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.02 2 0.15Rest Room 3,593 Washroom heavy use 3.59 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76 2 2.76Circulate 40,641 Public‐hard 5.42 1.98 1.33 1.06 0.97 2 1.98Mechanical 21,586 Storeroom 0.28 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.006 2 0.10Office 4,943 Office‐hard 0.59 0.34 0.20 0.14 0.10 2 0.34Office Service 732 Utility 0.18 0.13 0.07 0.04 0.02 2 0.13Dept Commons 551 Lounge 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.004 2 0.06Athletic 113,863 Public‐hard 15.18 5.55 3.73 2.97 2.72 2 5.55Gymnasium 34,094 Gymnasium‐wood 1.97 0.93 0.42 0.13 0.03 2 0.93Athletic Seating 2,974 Auditorium Seating 0.52 0.21 0.09 0.04 0.007 2 0.21Athletic Service 6,151 Utility 1.50 1.12 0.63 0.35 0.13 2 1.12Locker Room 10,905 Locker 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 2 0.90Shower/Sauna 2,379 Shower 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 2 0.46Lounge 1,104 Lounge 0.21 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.01 2 0.13Receiving 294 Utility 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 2 0.05Athletic Service‐Storage 1,728 Storeroom 0.02 0.01 0.004 0.001 0.001 2 0.01

drs_appa.xlsx 6/14/2010

Inactive 5,627 Storeroom 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.003 0.002 2 0.03Unfinished 8,555 Storeroom 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.005 0.003 2 0.04Conference 1,302 Classroom‐carpet 0.13 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 2 0.06Conference Service 87 Utility 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.002 2 0.02

Totals 261,943 31.57 15.05 10.97 9.01 8.19 15.05

Supervision @ 18:1 1.75 0.84 0.61 0.50 0.46 0.84

Vacation/Holiday/SL/FMLA @ 217 hrs/year 3.30 1.57 1.15 0.94 0.86 1.57


Current FTE 2009‐20 Budget 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2

drs_appa.xlsx 6/14/2010

VET Medicine‐‐VTH Custodial Services Data

SMAS SMAS APPA APPA LEVELS APPA APPACategory SQ FT Category 1 2 3 4 5 Goal Goal FTEVehicle 2825 Storeroom 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.002 0.001 2‐3 0.01Cent Service 652 Laundry/Utility 0.16 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.01 2‐3 0.09Patient Room 2703 Patient Treatment‐hard 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 1‐2 0.93Patient Service 408 Utility 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.01 2‐3 0.06MD Pers Service 273 Kitchen/Utility 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 2‐3 0.04Surgery 3241 Patient Treatment‐hard 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1‐2 1.12Surgery Service 2716 Patient Treatment‐hard 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 1‐2 0.94Treatment 12736 Patient Treatment‐hard 4.39 4.39 4.39 4.39 4.39 1‐2 4.39Treatment Service 2590 Patient Treatment‐hard 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 1‐2 0.89DIAG Serv Lab 793 Patient Treatment‐hard 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 1‐2 0.27GH11&GH16 Circulate 7220 Patient Treatment‐hard 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 1‐2 2.49PUBL Waiting 1476 Public‐hard floor 0.20 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 2‐3 0.06

Totals 37,633 11.59 11.36 11.23 11.15 11.10 11.29

Supervision 18:1 0.64 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.45

vet_appa.xlsx 6/14/2010

Supervision 18:1 0.64 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.45

Vacation/SL/FMLS/Holiday @ 217 hrs/year 1.21 1.19 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.18


Current FTE 2009‐10 budget 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.30

Also utilize student labor (2,000 hrs/year), Technicians and Vet undergraduate students for custodial tasks

vet_appa.xlsx 6/14/2010


Appendix 6 Estimated Total Cost vs. Benchmark

While neither Sightlines nor APPA provide any cost information, an estimate of Purdue’s total labor cost can be assessed with the use of this efficiency measure and recently obtained salary and benefit metrics for Purdue’s custodial staff. Recently, Purdue has engaged various consultants to benchmark elements of employee compensation. Using the benchmark salary and compensation on Purdue’s level of efficiency suggests the additional cost that might be incurred if the University were to pay for performance at the APPA standards for comparable quality and productivity.

The comparison above shows the potential cost avoidance based on the APPA standards compared to the benchmark.

Purdue Average Custodial Total Compensation BenchmarkSalary 21,073$ Salary 20,600$Estimated benefits @ 50% 10,537 Estimated Benefits 9,083 Purdue at 116% of Benchmark Total Compensation 31,610$ Total Compensation 29,683$

Efficiency - positions avoided 178 Cost avoided 5,268,766$ Salary differential (1,209,723) Existing staff at actual salary compared to benchmarkPotential cost avoidance 4,059,043$

[1] Mercer Metropolitan Benchmarking Surv ey, March 1, 2009, per Purdue Gov ernance Report on Compensation, May 2010, p. 2.

[2] Mercer Metropolitan Benchmarking Surv ey, March 1, 2009, per Purdue Gov ernance Report on Compensation, May 2010, p. 2.

[3] Hewitt Associates LLC Total Compensation Market Analysis, Purdue Univ ersity, May 25, 2010, p. 27.

At benchmark level


Appendix 7 Non-Traditional Tasks

Each area of Custodial Services at Purdue includes many tasks that are performed on both a recurring and non-recurring basis, and are not generally included in the APPA standards at specific levels of cleanliness. Deemed “non-traditional” tasks by the various areas of oversight, these tasks are critical to the maintenance of facilities and/or the student, staff, faculty or guest experience.

Building Services

Cleaning Tasks � Manage to LEED’s Silver certification with use of green cleaning products and methods � Provide weekend cleaning by work-order for weekend classes and presentations per SMAS � Provide project work cleaning involving lifts or scaffold for high cleaning and dusting � Remove, clean, and re-install all campus blinds on an annual basis � Provide increased cleaning frequencies for all libraries during dead week and finals week of all

semesters (additional 200 hours per) � Oversee subcontractor cleaning of exterior windows for 102 buildings on bi-annual basis � Provide cleanup and flood emergency response � Provide setup and cleanup coverage for 4th of July, Bug Bowl, and all graduations. � Pickup recycling 2 times a week at desk-side, daily in classrooms, as needed in central areas � Sidewalk and entrance snow and Ice removal for 102 academic buildings as needed, 10 feet

from all entrances; Discovery Park uses special product � Lock and unlock service for academic buildings daily, weekend, holidays, and by work order. � Lock and unlock gates daily to service property � Respond to lock-outs (when building occupants are locked out of a building or room) � Repair blinds as needed � Install blinds in new construction � Staff safety committees on all three shifts with time to meet and investigate safety issues � Set battery clocks twice a year at time changes. � Provide additional eyes for security of staff and safety of property � Raise, Lower, and maintain 5 campus flags and flag poles; PMU flag requires lift � Turn in lost items to Lost and Found � Provide perimeter security during building emergencies � Collect feminine product money and stock dispensers � Submit work-orders for repairs � Provide signs for Farmers Market � Management/Supervisor tasks: o Document statistics through Sightlines for benchmarking with peer institutions and to

measure efficiencies using APPA standards. o Conduct annual employee evaluations for 340.5 staff o Maintain OSHA and Purdue documentations for safety

Intercollegiate Athletics

Non-Traditional � Minor plumbing, construction, remodel calls � Lock repair � Office décor � Painting � Repair tile walls � Ballast replacement � Re-lamp fixtures � Repair door closers � Pick up and deliver laundry for baseball � Pick up and deliver laundry to tennis


� Pick up and deliver towels to AQUA Basketball Games � Remove goals � Replace nets � Replace goals � Adjust goals � Test goals � Set-up tables and chairs � Park and power TV trucks overtime � Assist camera hook-ups with TV crew overtime � Hang banners for TV crews � Sweep floor during games Track Event Lambert � Install/remove throwing cage off lift � Install/remove high vault pit � Install/remove high jump pit � Set-up track for events � Cover Lambert track for events Volleyball Games � Set up nets, score benches, bleacher, media benches, scaffolding � Set-up 4-6 nets for practices � Uncover floor from basketball games � Set-up sound systems/check � Work with TV crews on televised games � Work the event Football Games � Set-up sound systems/check � Set-up half time room after kick off � Set-up Kissell Center for 3 meals � Provide security for building not being used � Set-up/tear down 3 floors in Ross Ade Pavilion for football game day events � Set-up football mud room for lunch � Set-up Mollenkopf Athletic Center for game day visitors/recruits � Assist with Street Fest � Clean additional restrooms/visitors’ locker room � Set-up/tear down football meeting rooms � Scrub half-time room Tennis Event � Vacuum tennis courts during events Baseball/Softball/Soccer Events � Clean and scrub trailers/restrooms � Relocate goals/nets/batting cages � Clean and scrub press boxes

Division of Recreational Sports

AQUA Tasks � Turn in lost items to Lost and Found � Report any power outages, air quality problems and water level or spa problems � Extra cleanup/irregular hours for swim meets � Clean exterior windows � Flush perimeter drain

Recreational Sports Center � Serve as first responder for blood borne pathogen and body fluid clean-up � Assist male maintenance staff in areas occupied by females � Complete minor repair or scheduled maintenance


� Set-up events: o Registration tables and chairs o Events for badminton, volleyball, ping pong, drop cords o Special lighting for outdoor activities

� Custodial and operational support for large scale special events � Assist with hardwood floor refinishing � Assist in snow removal by operating snow blower, using snow shovel and applying ice melt in

season � Assist in outside maintenance around facility including weeding landscape beds, operating

weed eater and push mower, and distribution mulch in season � Maintain dumpster to assure quality of storm water runoff � Gather and turn in all lost and found items � Assist with towel and jersey laundry � Clean exterior windows

Purdue Memorial Union

Non-traditional tasks � Refinish South Tower wooden stage & steps

Building Emergency & Safety Issues � Assist with building evacuation during fire alarms � Assist guests to a safe location during tornado alarms � Shovel snow from all entryways, loading dock, emergency exits of the building � Assist in cleanup during water flood due to pipe breaks, grease trap overflow, etc.

Departmental Maintenance � Perform monthly & annual preventative maintenance on cleaning equipment: � Check operation, clean housing, cords, check motors, adjust settings, replace worn parts, etc. � Repair all setup equipment as needed: including repairing tables, chairs, replacing worn

operational parts, repairing carts, installing new wheels, etc � Maintain setup equipment in good working order: lubricating moving parts, installing missing

shoes, legs, feet on tables & chairs, tightening loose fittings. Install bumpers on carts, lubricate wheels on carts.

� Fabricate equipment as needed for both cleaning and setup needs: carts for tables, post/ropes, chairs, etc.

� Assist maintenance department as needed during emergencies.

Union Club Hotel

Additional Duties � Flip mattresses on floor periodically � Assist in Union Club laundry as assigned

“Pull a Room” � Each housekeeper is expected to deep clean all of the rooms on the assigned floor each

month as time permits

Residence Halls

� Signage-updating and removal � Policing outdoor trash and grounds � Develop rapport with residents � Security � Assist & complete minor maintenance tasks � Reporting needed repairs � Laundry Functions � Landscape care – including trimming, edging, weeding, & mulching


� Event setups and tear down � Building a working relationships with resident assistants � Exterior building cleaning � Apartment inspections � Assist Main Office in the delivering and picking up of various items � Unlocking doors for vendors and providing escorts � Furniture moving � Maintaining safe sidewalks and entrance areas during inclement weather, includes snow

removal. � Emergency clean-ups (i.e. floods, fire, resident health issues) � Report to GM/RLM any student conduct and policy violations � Assist students & parents during Fall, Spring and Summer check-ins and check-outs � Pack/Move student belongings during temporary housing relocation � Window screen and window well cleaning � Maintain hall vehicle � Assist with Project Move Out and Operation Clean Sweep � End of school year bike removal � Interior and exterior painting, including the scheduled rotational painting of all areas in multiple

years. � Assist with the installation & removal of lofted beds for the University Residences loft rental

program � Exchange/Wash entry matting � Inventory control on chemicals/supplies � Supply ordering & updating the MSDS manual � Curtain/drapery cleaning and maintenance. � Wax fiberglass showers quarterly – First Street Tower only � Sewage checks for Hilltop Apartments � Maintain fire pit for Hilltop Apartments � Provide all services necessary to maintain the summer housing of commencement guests,

sports camps, conferences & other specialty housing requirements.

Veterinary Medicine

� Occasionally must handle animals (i.e., greyhound blood donor dogs) � Occasionally assist veterinary clinicians, technicians, and students with animal patients � Assist in minor repair and maintenance � Work conditions include presence of body fluids (including blood), removal of deceased

animal carcasses, tasks in isolation areas, removal of animal urine and feces from the hospital floors and grounds


Appendix 8 Intangible Benefits of Internal Staff

Hiring engaged and self-motivated employees is often the intangible ingredient that is critical for growth in an organization focused on quality service. Research points out that employee engagement translates into employee loyalty and pride, which then drives improved productivity and positive business outcomes. Employee engagement and motivation also lead to other intangible assets; intangible assets are identifiable non-monetary benefits created through time and effort, for which value cannot be directly measured. One individual from Purdue’s Building Service Department pointed out the time and commitment of custodial staff at the University has led to the, “creation of institutional knowledge of processes, best practices, and programs.” These competitive intangibles directly impact effectiveness, productivity and opportunity costs within an organization. The following comments were received from customers of custodial services and reflect many of the intangible benefits provided by our current custodial staff. This list is not intended to suggest benefits are only in those noted areas.

Purdue Pride and Community

Members of Purdue’s custodial staff:

� Are part of the Purdue family not only as employees but also as students, parents of students, alumni, and informal mentors

~ Building Services, Purdue Memorial Union, and University Residences

� Contribute to the Purdue community by providing students, faculty, and administrative staff with a clean and comfortable atmosphere

~ Academic Faculty, Building Services, Purdue Memorial Union, and University Residences

� Ensure that visitors and prospective students see Purdue’s pride, workmanship, and ownership by carefully maintain the University’s world-class facilities and beautiful grounds

~ Building Services, Purdue Memorial Union

Engagement and Quality


� Uphold strict and specific standards for campus buildings in which faculty are involved in highly sensitive work

~ Veterinary Medicine, Academic Faculty

� Maintain nationally recognized sustainable practices ~ Building Services

� Cultivate strong relationships with guests, customers and students which enables them to anticipate needs and work ahead to serve with valuable seamless and unspoken service

~ Purdue Memorial Union

� Encourage and motivate students to study hard and succeed academically; acting as partners in fulfilling Purdue’s core mission of student success

~ University Residences

Security and Trust


� Promote a sense of trust familiarity and consistency for students, faculty and staff


~ Building Services, Chemistry, Academic Faculty, Intercollegiate Athletics Administration

� Act as physical security for the University’s buildings, equipment and other assets; serving as an internal security force

~ Building Services, Intercollegiate Athletics Administration, Division of Recreational Sports

� Perform physical security for faculty, staff and students during non-business hours and when requested provide personalized escort for students and faculty to their automobiles during the evening and night hours. ~ Building Services

Flexibility, Reliability and Teamwork


� Willingly take on additional dues including flag duties, changing clocks, blind maintenance and cleaning, campus lock and unlocks, responding to lockouts, crowd/perimeter control during emergencies, grounds work, event setup, painting, security, bed lofting, lost and found services, and providing extra care for faculty offices during vacation periods

~ Building Services, Chemistry, Academic Faculty, Intercollegiate Athletics Administration, Purdue Memorial Union, University Residences

� Exhibit an instantaneous, reliable and flexible ability to deal with unforeseeable contingencies, emergencies, as well as being generally willing to hold flexible schedules to meet operational needs

~ Building Services, Intercollegiate Athletics Administration, Purdue Memorial Union, Division of Recreational Sports

� Provide on hand, on site capability to react to facility or event needs at any time and have demonstrated the ability to proactively maintain publically viewed events

~ Intercollegiate Athletics Administration, Purdue Memorial Union, Division of Recreational Sports

� Work as part of the University’s team providing a willingness to help maintain high standards and exceed expectations

~ Building Services, Intercollegiate Athletics Administration, University Residences

Commitment and Loyalty


� Demonstrate dedication and enthusiasm to continually improve ~ Building Services

� Have been employed by the University on average for more than 10 years ~ Building Services

� Provide a wealth of knowledge, developed by years of intuitional knowledge of processes, best practices and programs which has established a high standard of quality and reliability

~ Building Services, Intercollegiate Athletics Administration, Purdue Memorial Union,

� Act as partners, playing a key role in fulfilling our core mission of community building ~ Intercollegiate Athletics Administration, Purdue Memorial Union


� Go beyond what is required; during emergencies, many staff members have volunteered to stay overnight in Residence Halls and at Purdue Memorial Union

~ Building Services, Purdue Memorial Union, University Residences

Lasting Impressions

Members of Purdue’s custodial staff contribute to the lasting impression that Purdue is:

� A beautiful campus, maintained by careful and attentive campus community ~ University Residences, Purdue Memorial Union

� A positive, pleasant, clean living and visiting experience ~ University Residences, Purdue Memorial Union

� A home away from home for both current students and alumni who return to visit their “old” rooms

~ University Residences


Appendix 9 Peer Group for Sightlines Comparison to Purdue

Indiana University

Iowa State University

Miami University

Michigan State University

Notre Dame University

Ohio State University

Penn State University

University of Illinois

University of Michigan

University of Minnesota

University of Missouri


Appendix 10 Building Services Customer Satisfaction Survey

DATE BUILDING BUILDING SUPERVISOR CONTACT #

Please answer the following questions based on your satisfaction.

1. Very Dissatisfied 2. Dissatisfied 3. Satisfied 4. Very Satisfied

*****************************************************************************************************

1. How satisfied are you with our service?

Restrooms (5x a week) 1 2 3 4

Halls/Entrances (3x a week) 1 2 3 4

Water Fountains (5x a week) 1 2 3 4

Classrooms (3-5x a week) 1 2 3 4

Trash Removal (3 – 5x a week) 1 2 3 4

Snow Removal (Entrances) 1 2 3 4

2. How satisfied are you with our response to emergency calls?

1 2 3 4

3. How do you rate the courtesy of Building Services staff?

1 2 3 4

4. How are we at following-up and communicating?

1 2 3 4

5. Overall, how satisfied are you with our service?

1 2 3 4

6. How can we perform our current tasks and frequencies better?

CONTACT NAME PHONE # DATE


Appendix 11 Building Services – Survey Results July 2009 – April 2010

July 2009 - April 2010

# of Surveys Sent 219

# of Surveys Returned 141

Return Percentage 64.4%

Questions VeryDissatisfied

Dissatisfied Satisfied VerySatisfied

LeftBlank or

How satisfied are you with our services?

Restrooms (5x a week) 2 7 50 81 1

OVERALL PERCENTAGE 1.4% 5.0% 35.5% 57.4% 0.7%

Halls/Entrances (3x a week) 2 3 46 88 2


Water Fountains (5x a week) 0 1 37 96 7


Classrooms (3-5x a week) 0 1 28 58 54

OVERALL PERCENTAGE 0% 1% 20% 41% 38%

Trash Removal (3 - 5x a week) 0 4 36 101 0


Snow Removal (Entrances) 3 5 39 75 19


Satisfaction with response to emergency calls 0 7 35 79 20


Courtesy of B.S. staff 1 1 26 109 4


Follow-up and communication 2 5 39 89 6


Overall satisfaction of service 0 2 45 91 3


96.5%


Appendix 12

Select 6 Comparison Peer Institutions

CONFIDENTIAL

Excluded as required by contract with EBI as a record containing trade secrets


Appendix 13 Confidentiality and the Use of EBI Benchmarking Study Data

A. EBI has established the following policy regarding the disclosure and use of the results from its benchmarking studies. Individuals or groups who gain access to the results are subject to this confidentiality policy.

B. EBI results fall into two categories: Restricted Results and Unrestricted Results

1) "Restricted Results" shall include the following:

a) Factor and question means reported for Participant's "Select 6" comparison group, Carnegie classification, "All Institutions" or any other grouping in the study.

b) Names of comparison institutions and question or factor ranking or comparison with "Select 6" comparison institutions, Carnegie classification, "All Institutions" or any other grouping in the study.

c) All other information contained in or related to the assessment survey, the results of the survey, or any reports generated regarding the assessment, except as expressly designated as "Unrestricted Results" herein.

2) "Unrestricted Results" shall include general comments about Participant's institutional data as well as percentage differences in factor or question means over time of Participant. This includes percentages, but not specific numeric values from the survey results. For example, Participant may indicate qualitative descriptions of the form "we have seen a 15% improvement in overall satisfaction since 1998" but not indicate a quantitative description such as "we have improved from a 4.65 to a 5.31 in overall satisfaction".

C. Participant is permitted to disclose Restricted Results to the following parties only, subject further to the condition that this confidentiality policy is included with all shared results:

1) Offices or staff internal to Participant, including executive offices and offices of assessment and/or institutional research

2) Any external consultant hired to assist Participant, provided that any such consultant does not share the results with external organizations, third parties, or members of their consulting organization not engaged in the consulting project for Participant

3) Regional/national/discipline-specific accrediting organizations or legislative review processes, if applicable

4) Participant's institutional advisory boards/committees

Participant is thereby not permitted to disclose Restricted Results in any other manner, including but not limited to,disclosing Restricted Results to the following parties: prospective students, organizations external to the institution, or any other third parties, including release to such parties through external newsletters, news releases, websites, marketing materials, or publications viewed by external populations.

D. Participant is permitted to disclose Unrestricted Results to any party mentioned in Section 4.C above, as well as prospective students, students, alumni or organizations external to Participant. This includes release of results through publications viewed by external populations (e.g. external newsletters, news releases, websites or marketing materials).

E. Workshop and Professional Publications Confidentiality Statement. For the limited purpose of sharing their experiences of using results of EBI studies for continuous improvement, including the sharing of results analysis techniques, presenters at conferences designed to facilitate the effective use of project results and authors of

professional publications may disclose the following with fellow professionals: (1) their own results analysis, (2) the aggregate results of "all institutions", (3) the aggregate results of the Carnegie Class Analysis, and (4) the aggregate

results of their "Select 6" comparison group, so long as the "Select 6" institutions are not individually identified.


Appendix 14 ACUHO-I Benchmarking Results – 2006/2007

CONFIDENTIAL

Excluded as required by contract with EBI as a record containing trade secrets


Appendix 15 University Residences – Survey Results February 2010 – May 2010

Last Modified: 05/05/2010

1. Please indicate the building for which the service was requested.

# Answer Response %1 Cary Quadrangle 7 6% 2 Earhart Hall 7 6% 3 First Street Towers 1 1% 4 Harrison Hall 4 4% 5 Hawkins Hall 2 2% 6 Hillenbrand Hall 7 6% 7 Hilltop Apartments 15 14% 8 McCutcheon Hall 4 4% 9 Meredith Hall 7 6% 10 Owen Hall 1 1% 16 Purdue Memorial Union 0 0% 11 Purdue Village Apartments 31 28% 12 Shreve Hall 8 7% 13 Tarkington Hall 3 3% 14 Wiley Hall 6 6% 15 Windsor Halls 6 6%

Total 109 100%

2. I am a:

# Answer Response %1 Student 89 82% 2 Staff Member 20 18%

Total 109 100%


3. Please rate your recent experience with your request for maintenance or repair service.

# Question Excellent Average Poor Responses Mean1 Timeliness of our response to your request 91 8 0 99 1.08 2 Quality of our workmanship 89 8 2 99 1.12

3 Communication you received regarding your request 85 12 1 98 1.14

4 Friendliness of the staff who responded to your request 90 8 0 98 1.08

Statistic Timeliness of

our response to your request

Quality of our workmanship

Communication you received regarding

your request

Friendliness of the staff who

responded to your request

Mean 1.08 1.12 1.14 1.08 Variance 0.08 0.15 0.14 0.08 Standard Deviation 0.27 0.39 0.38 0.28

TotalResponses 99 99 98 98


4. Are there any additional comments you would like to provide regarding how your repair/maintenance request was addressed?

Text Response I know that ----- was here to fix the machine because I saw him driving in as I was heading out for the day. So, the last two questions are not really applicable. It is still broken, we and now our neighbors have no hot water, none since thursday. Please help. Great job! Thanks for the timely fix! It was not the first repair/maintenance of my door lock. I hope it would not happen again. Quick response I was told that the problem was fixed, when it was not. This is a wonderful service! I put in my request and it only took a day! It was really nice to have that taken care of so quickly! It was taken care of perfectly the second time I filled out a request but the first time it went at least three weeks without anyone contacting me so I filled out another one. Who ever fixed my room was amazing! You guys did a great job in fixing this fast and when we needed it and everyone is super friendly. It was looked at and that he would fix it this summer. It got bigger and caused the kitchen to lose food, because a cart fell over after a wheel got stuck in the hole. Then it was patched. It takes several times for the work to be completed correctly and the problem typically becomes much worse before it is improved Fast response time was great. Thanks so much Only part of the issue was ever really addressed. Maintenance person who came to our apartment was amazing with his explanation. Thanks a lot. It was very prompt and well done. Thank you. Excellent service! Request submitted in the morning, and was completed before I returned from classes. Work was well done. Thank you. Very well done,very prompt and cordial. They knew exactly what I meant when I said there was a problem. They fixed it very well. The guy was very friendly and didn't waste any time. He got right to work and took care of the problem, then left. This request was finished in a timely fashion, but I have had other request that I was not happy with the finished product. So fast and efficient. The man came in already knowing what the problem is and did it in no time. PV is great. thank you very much loved , the work they did and how fast they worked

Statistic Value Total Responses 24


5. Please rate your overall experience with your living environment.

# Question Excellent Average Poor Responses Mean1 Overall Cleanliness 58 23 1 82 1.30 2 Overall Maintenance 68 14 0 82 1.17

3 General Repair of Facilities and Equipment 68 14 0 82 1.17

Statistic Overall Cleanliness

Overall Maintenance

General Repair of Facilities and Equipment

Mean 1.30 1.17 1.17 Variance 0.24 0.14 0.14 Standard Deviation 0.49 0.38 0.38

Total Responses 82 82 82


6. Are there comments you wish to provide regarding the overall experience with your living environment?

Text Response Anyone who has fixed something we requested was very punctual and friendly, so I don't have any complaints in that regards. However, "close door" button in one of the elevators has been broken for the longest time, and while it's not really important it's just annoying. It would be spectacular if that could be fixed somehow. Great! AMAZING JOB Hardly knew they were here. Bathrooms are usually not clean but that may be due more from the residents than the maintenance. I feel like our elevators break often and they take a long time (days or weeks) to be fixed. For there to not be people working before 10 in the morning. PV is the best place to rent apartment. thank you for waxing the floors they look great


7. Please rate your overall experience with your office / work environment. (1=Excellent, 3=Poor)

# Question Excellent Average Poor Responses Mean1 Overall Cleanliness 13 3 0 16 1.19 2 Overall Maintenance 14 2 0 16 1.13

3 General Repair of Facilities and Equipment 13 3 0 16 1.19


Statistic Overall Cleanliness

Overall Maintenance

General Repair of Facilities and Equipment

Mean 1.19 1.13 1.19 Variance 0.16 0.12 0.16 Standard Deviation 0.40 0.34 0.40

Total Responses 16 16 16

8. Are there comments you wish to provide regarding the overall experience with your office / work environment?

Text Response Our hall is spotless and many many parents comment on how great it looks and what a great job our staff does.



This page intentionally left blank

purdue university review and assessment of custodial ...€¦ · purdue university review and...

Documents