the end
play

THE END Confidential for The New Mexico State University 74 for - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 29, 2023 •474 likes •1.76k views

N EW M EXICO S TATE U NIVERSITY C USTODIAL S ERVICES M ANAGEMENT A SSESSMENT F INAL R EPORT B Y H UNTER C ONSULTINGAND T RAINING (3-14-2017) Confidential for The New Mexico State University 1 for Discussion Purposes Only N EW M EXICO S TATE U

  1. E XECUTIVE S UMMARY C URRENT C LEANING P ERFORMANCE S TATUS – FTE R EQUIREMENT ( CONTINUED ) NMSU Current Cleaning Status – FTE Requirement (continued) : • FS has Service Level Agreements (SLA) with Auxiliaries, Housing, and Athletics requiring APPA Level-2 service which is provided on a recharged basis; • There is no official designation of the desired level of cleanliness for the I&G spaces; • The graph indicates the number of FTEs required to service the SLA’s at APPA Level -2 while cleaning the rest of the campus at the indicated APPA Level; • For the sake of illustration, if the campus adapts APPA Level-3 as its target for I&G spaces while being required to provide APPA Level- 2 for the space covered by SLA’s, CS would need 152.3 FTEs compared to the 123.5 Authorized FTEs and 118.9 Available FTEs resulting from vacancies; • The breakout for the above scheme would be 37.1 FTEs for SLA spaces at APPA Level-2 and 115.2 FTEs for I&G spaces at APPA Level-3 • While CS is understaffed based on FTE requirement for an average organization, staffing is not the only reason for the inconsistent results. • Required FTEs are based on average organizations – high-performing organizations would require fewer FTEs (possibly 10%-20% less). 1 Authorized FTEs – the fulltime equivalent of the number of position authorized and funded in the budget. 2 Available FTEs – the fulltime equivalent of the total hours of workers available to perform work after subtracting availability lost to vacant positions. 3 Includes Workers, Supervisory, and Contracted FTEs for I&G, Auxiliaries; Athletics; and Housing common area, make ready, and summer conference support. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 13 for Discussion Purposes Only

  2. E XECUTIVE S UMMARY C URRENT C LEANING P ERFORMANCE S TATUS – B UDGET R EQUIREMENT NMSU Current Cleaning Status – Budget Requirement : • FS has Service Level Agreements (SLA) with Auxiliaries, Housing, and Athletics requiring APPA Level-2 service which is provided on a recharged basis; • There is no official designation of the desired level of cleanliness for the I&G spaces; • The graph indicates the budget required to service the SLA’s at APPA Level -2 while cleaning the rest of the campus at the indicated APPA Level; • The estimated budget requirement is based on the estimated FTEs, the average wage and fringe benefit rate of FS current custodial workforce, and assuming that the cost of supplies would be equal to 10% of the labor cost, and the cost of equipment will be 5% of the labor cost; • As indicated in the above graph, CS is funded to achieve APPA Level-4; • To compensate for the lack of staff, CS must transform itself into a modern-day high-performing workforce by adopting industry Best Practices including better equipping and training the custodians; leveraging technology; adopting a formal quality assurance program, and enhancing its approach to providing supervision and leadership for the workers. 1 Authorized FTEs – the fulltime equivalent of the number of position authorized and funded in the budget. 2 Available FTEs – the fulltime equivalent of the total hours of workers available to perform work after subtracting availability lost to vacant positions. 3 Includes Workers, Supervisory, and Contracted FTEs for I&G, Auxiliaries; Athletics; and Housing common area, make ready, and summer conference support. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 14 for Discussion Purposes Only

  3. E XECUTIVE S UMMARY (R OOT C AUSES ) Factors contributing to cleanliness being less than desired : – Budget and staffing constraints; – Standardization, training, and Best Practices are not fully functioning throughout all levels in the custodial organization - the workforce is working in a reactive mode; – No formal program/plan for performing Project Tasks - interim and restorative floor care (project work) is not scheduled or performed consistently; – Custodial workers leads are not planning and coordinating the work of co-workers and spending little to no time guiding/training them in according with what is normally expected of a lead or crew leader in the cleaning industry; – Primarily Custodial Leads are spending 100% of their time cleaning and 0% leading – typical expectation would be 50% cleaning and 50% leading – percentage not described in their position description; – Inadequate equipment inventory – the number of pieces of equipment per custodian and the annual equipment expenditure is well below expected; – Historical Available FTEs are less than Authorized FTEs due to vacancies, lack of hiring, and unnecessarily slow hiring process; – Historical hiring process and hiring freeze have hindered timely replacement of workers; – Lack of administrative and information analysis support to the manager and supervisors; – Lack of use of technology to assist in workloading, staff assignment, and scheduling. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 15 for Discussion Purposes Only

  4. E XECUTIVE S UMMARY B OTTOM L INE Estimated FTE and budget requirements: • 191 FTEs / $6.39M to clean all spaces at APPA Level-2 1; • 153 FTEs / $5.26M to clean SLA spaces at APPA Level-2 and I&G spaces at APPA Level-3 ; • 122 FTEs / $4.21M to clean SLA spaces at APPA Level-2 and I&G spaces at APPA Level-4 ; • Estimate is based on the current Usable Square Feet Inventory without validation of whether the space is in fact cleanable space; • FTEs and budget include non-cleaning additional duties, supervision, housing make ready, and summer conference support; • Any change in assigned space to clean will require a change in the estimated FTEs and budget requirement; FTEs in Current Organization Chart and FY 15-16 Final Budget Expenditures: • 123 FTEs / $4.23M to clean the campus including non-cleaning additional duties, and supervision; – Based on its existing staff operating in its current mode of operations, CS is staffed and funded to achieve slightly better than APPA Level-4 for I&G spaces as long as it is required to provide SLA customers with APPA Level-2. 1 APPA, the professional association for educational facilities officers (www.appa.org) published guidelines that define cleanliness level 1 through 5 with 1 being the best and 5 being the worst. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 16 for Discussion Purposes Only

  5. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS Confidential for The New Mexico State University 17 for Discussion Purposes Only

  6. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS S TAFF & C USTOMER P ERCEPTIONS – I NFORMAL S URVEY S CORES Confidential for The New Mexico State University 18 for Discussion Purposes Only

  7. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS S TAFF & C USTOMER P ERCEPTIONS – I NFORMAL S URVEY S CORES Staff & Customer Perceptions : • Consultant conducted individual interviews and held focus groups discussions with FS staff and customers to gather information on staff & customer perceptions; • Discussion was centered around 10 attributes: Communication, Timeliness; Responsive, Complaint Handling; Access; Quality, Competence, Customer Service, Ease of Doing Business, and Overall Cleanliness; • Participants were asked to score the attributes from 1 (very bad) to 10 (very good); • A graphical representation of the scores are presented in the following slides; • While there were some satisfied customers in the customer focus group, most customer focus group participants expressed dissatisfaction with the custodial services they receive; • Customer focus group participants scored Communication (4.32) the lowest among the attributes, Timeliness the next lowest (5.11) and then Quality (5.53); • A gap analysis of the difference in perception between different groups follows: – The FS group average is much higher than the customer average with the largest gap in perception occurring for Responsiveness , Quality , and Timeliness – implying that FS as an organization has an opportunity to enhance its customer awareness; – The FS Management group average is much closer to the customer average with the largest gaps occurring for Complaint Handling , Access , and Ease of Doing Business. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 19 for Discussion Purposes Only

  8. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS S TAFF & C USTOMER P ERCEPTIONS – I NFORMAL S URVEY S CORES Staff & Customer Perceptions (continued) : • The smaller gap between FS management and the customer is a good sign that FS management recognizes the opportunity to enhance services; • FS scored Overall Cleanliness 7.21 compared to the FS Management score of 7.33 and the customer score of 6.26 – this is a good indication that the three groups are in fair agreement that the results being achieved by the custodial organization is less than desired; • One customer group had an average score of 8.1, but scored overall cleanliness 6.25; • Another customer group had an average score of 4.94, but scored overall cleanliness 6.00; • In summary, FS Custodial Service has an overall customer approval rating of 65.2% and the cleanliness results it achieves has a customer approval rating of 61.3%; • The results of the customer focus groups are consistent with the results the NMSU Fall 2015 Facilities and Services Customer Satisfaction Survey expressed in a different way; • The raw scores are important since they provide insight into the perception of the groups; • The gap analysis is very important because the gap in perception between groups can provide insight into how aware each group is of each other; • Two gap analysis slides follows in this section and five additional slides are in the Supporting Slides section. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 20 for Discussion Purposes Only

  9. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS S TAFF & C USTOMER P ERCEPTIONS – I NFORMAL S URVEY S CORES Service Perceptions Ease of Participant Communication Timeliness Complaint Customer Overall Responsiveness Access Quality Competence Doing Group Handling Service Cleanliness Participant Group Business Average 6.20 FS Management 4.33 5.67 5.33 7.33 8.00 6.33 6.33 6.00 5.33 7.33 8.40 FS Supervisors 9.00 6.50 9.00 9.00 8.50 8.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 8.00 8.30 Team 1 8.00 6.60 7.60 9.00 9.40 7.20 9.20 8.40 9.60 8.00 8.69 Team 3 8.08 6.69 8.92 9.54 10.00 9.31 9.92 9.08 8.92 6.46 7.91 Team 5 4.67 8.50 9.00 9.58 9.17 8.17 7.08 8.83 7.67 6.42 8.20 Team 6 5.27 8.64 9.36 9.64 6.36 8.64 8.09 9.18 8.55 8.27 8.10 Customer Focus Group 1 6.25 7.50 9.00 9.25 9.25 6.75 8.00 9.25 9.50 6.25 4.94 Customer Focus Group 2 2.60 5.00 6.80 5.40 4.60 5.40 4.20 4.60 4.80 6.00 7.70 Aux Services 6.50 7.00 9.00 8.50 7.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 5.42 Athletics 3.17 3.67 4.33 4.67 6.33 4.67 7.50 6.17 6.67 7.00 5.05 Housing 6.00 3.00 7.50 6.00 6.50 4.50 3.50 5.50 4.00 4.00 Averages 5.86 6.69 8.06 8.42 7.97 7.48 7.78 8.05 7.94 6.97 7.52 8.16 Fac & Serv 6.42 7.50 8.69 9.33 8.65 8.35 8.42 8.69 8.38 7.21 6.06 Customer 4.32 5.11 6.79 6.37 6.58 5.53 6.26 6.63 6.74 6.26 2.10 Perception Gap 2.10 2.39 1.90 2.96 2.07 2.83 2.15 2.06 1.64 0.95 Average Scores by Participant Group 10.00 8.20 7.17 7.91 8.69 9.00 8.40 8.30 8.10 7.70 8.00 Partiocipant Score 7.00 6.20 6.00 5.42 5.05 4.94 5.00 4.00 3 3.00 2 2.00 1 1.00 - FS FS Team 1 (5) Team 3 (13) Team 5 (12) Team 6 (11) Customer Customer Aux Services Athletics (6) Housing (2) Management Supervisors Focus Group Focus Group (2) (3) (4) 1 (4) 2 (5) Participant Group Average Overall Average Confidential for The New Mexico State University 21 for Discussion Purposes Only

  10. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS FS S TAFF & C USTOMER P ERCEPTIONS P ERCEPTION G AP A NALYSIS 3 1 2 Confidential for The New Mexico State University 22 for Discussion Purposes Only

  11. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS S TAFF & C USTOMER P ERCEPTIONS – P ERCEPTION G AP A NALYSIS 1 2 3 Confidential for The New Mexico State University Additional Gap Analysis 23 for Discussion Purposes Only

  12. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS S CORES BY A TTRIBUTE AND P ARTICIPANT G ROUP Scores by Attribute and Participant Group 12.00 10.00 Participant Score 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 - Complaint Ease of Doing Overall Communication Timeliness Responsiveness Access Quality Competence Customer Service Handling Business Cleanliness FS Management (3) 4.33 5.67 5.33 7.33 8.00 6.33 6.33 6.00 5.33 7.33 FS Supervisors (4) 9.00 6.50 9.00 9.00 8.50 8.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 8.00 Team 1 (5) 8.00 6.60 7.60 9.00 9.40 7.20 9.20 8.40 9.60 8.00 Team 3 (13) 8.08 6.69 8.92 9.54 10.00 9.31 9.92 9.08 8.92 6.46 Team 5 (12) 5.27 8.64 9.36 9.64 6.36 8.64 8.09 9.18 8.55 8.27 Team 6 (11) 6.25 7.50 9.00 9.25 9.25 6.75 8.00 9.25 9.50 6.25 Customer Focus Group 1 (4) 6.00 3.00 7.50 6.00 6.50 4.50 3.50 5.50 4.00 4.00 Customer Focus Group 2 (5) 2.60 5.00 6.80 5.40 4.60 5.40 4.20 4.60 4.80 6.00 Aux Services (2) 6.50 7.00 9.00 8.50 7.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 Athletics (6) 3.17 3.67 4.33 4.67 6.33 4.67 7.50 6.17 6.67 7.00 Housing (2) 6.00 3.00 7.50 6.00 6.50 4.50 3.50 5.50 4.00 4.00 Confidential for The New Mexico State University 24 for Discussion Purposes Only

  13. FTE E STIMATING G UIDELINES AND P ROTOCOL Confidential for The New Mexico State University 25 for Discussion Purposes Only

  14. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS G UIDELINES & P ROTOCOLS • Cleaning industry and higher education facilities management community accepted guidelines and protocols: – APPA, the association for higher education facilities professionals, published Custodial Operational Guidelines for Educational Facilities ( APPA Guidelines ); – APPA Guidelines provide custodial services organizations with standard concepts and protocols for staffing and managing the cleaning function ; – APPA Guidelines book is in its third edition, has been in public domain for many years; – APPA Guidelines book was updated to third edition in 2011; – APPA Guidelines accepted by the higher education and commercial cleaning industry as a de facto standard for custodial operations and staffing. • This assessment relies heavily on the concepts and protocols contained in the APPA Guidelines. 1 Custodial Operational Guidelines for Educational Facilities (APPA Guidelines) – this is a publication of custodial staffing and management concepts and protocol that have been in the public domain for many years and has been accepted by the higher education and commercial cleaning community as a de facto standard for managing cleaning operations (see www.APPA.org). Confidential for The New Mexico State University 26 for Discussion Purposes Only

  15. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS G UIDELINES K EY C OMPONENTS • APPA Guidelines Key Components: – Define cleanliness APPA Level-1 through APPA Level-5 (Level-1 is best and Level-5 is worst); – Provide lists of cleaning tasks and the performance frequency for different categories of spaces to achieve the five cleanliness levels; – Provide normalized “time to perform” guidelines for all tasks from ISSA 540 Cleaning Times 1 and adopted to higher education cleaning environment; – Provide a protocol for determining the FTEs and budget needed to achieve the desired cleanliness level by average organizations; – Provide an audit and inspection protocol for quality assurance, and for determining what cleanliness level is actually being achieved. 1 ISSA 540 Cleaning Times – published by ISSA, The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association, and is an industry accepted reference for estimating how much time it takes to perform cleaning tasks (www.ISSA.com). Confidential for The New Mexico State University 27 for Discussion Purposes Only

  16. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS APPA C USTODIAL S ERVICE L EVEL D EFINITIONS B Y L EVEL Level 1 - Orderly Spotlessness: Level 1 establishes cleaning at the highest Level 2 - Ordinary Tidiness: Level 2 is the level at which APPA and the level. It was developed for the corporate suite, the donated building, or the Higher Education housekeeping community has historically advocated as historical focal point. This is show-quality cleaning for that prime facility. the level to aspire to. Lower levels for washrooms, changing/locker rooms,  Floors and base moldings shine and/or are bright and clean; colors are and similar type facilities are not acceptable.  Floors and base moldings shine and/or are bright and clean. There is no fresh. There is no buildup in corners or along walls.  All vertical and horizontal surfaces have a freshly cleaned or polished buildup in corners or along walls, but there can be up to two days worth appearance, and have no accumulation of dust, dirt, marks, streaks, of dirt, dust, stains, or streaks.  All vertical and horizontal surfaces are clean, but marks, dust, smudges, smudges, or fingerprints.  Washroom and shower tile and fixtures gleam and are odor-free. and fingerprints are noticeable with close observation.  Washroom and shower tile and fixtures gleam and are odor-free. Supplies are adequate.  Trash containers and pencil sharpeners are empty, clean, and odor-free. Supplies are adequate.  Trash containers and pencil sharpeners are empty, clean, and odor-free. Level 3 - Casual Inattention: This level reflects the first budget cut, or some Level 4 - Moderate Dinginess: Level 4 reflects the second budget cut, or other staffing-related problem. It is a lowering of normal expectations. some other significant staffing-related problem. Areas are becoming While not totally acceptable, it has yet to reach an unacceptable level of unacceptable. People are beginning to accept an environment lacking cleanliness. normal cleanliness. In fact, the facility begins to constantly look like it  Floors are swept clean, but upon close observation dust, dirt, and stains, requires a good “spring cleaning.”  Floors are swept clean, but are dull. Colors are dingy, and there is an as well as a buildup of dirt, dust, and/or floor finish in corners and along walls, can be seen. obvious buildup of dust, dirt, and/or floor finish in corners and along  There are dull spots and/or matted carpet in walking lanes, and streaks walls. Molding is dull and contains streaks and splashes.  All vertical and horizontal surfaces have conspicuous dust, dirt, smudges, and splashes on base molding.  All vertical and horizontal surfaces have obvious dust, dirt, marks, fingerprints, and marks that will be difficult to remove. Less than 5% of smudges, and fingerprints. lamps are burned out, and fixtures are dingy.  Lamps all work and all fixtures are clean.  Trash containers and pencil sharpeners have old trash and shavings.  Trash containers and odor-free. They are stained and marked. Trash cans smell sour. Level 5 - Unkempt Neglect: This is the final and lowest level. The trucking industry would call this “just -in- time cleaning.” The facility is always dirty, with cleaning accomplished at an unacceptable level.  Floors and carpets are dirty and have visible wear and/or pitting. Colors are faded and dingy, and there is a conspicuous buildup of dirt, dust, and/or floor finish in corners and along walls. Base molding is dirty, stained, and streaked. Gum, stains, dirt, dust balls, and trash are broadcast.  All vertical and horizontal surfaces have major accumulations of dust, dirt, smudges, and fingerprints, as well as damage. It is evident that no maintenance or cleaning is done on these surfaces.  More than 5% of lamps are burned out, and fixtures are dirty with dust balls and flies.  Trash containers and pencil sharpeners overflow. They are stained and marked. Trash containers smell sour. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 28 for Discussion Purposes Only

  17. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU A DOPTED C LEANLINESS L EVEL • APPA and higher education facilities FY14/15 APPA FPI Self-Reported management community have Cleaning Level traditionally advocated APPA Level-2 ; 114 120 50% 47% Number of Respondents 43% • 104 However, due to limited resources and Percent of Respondents 100 40% constrained budget, many colleges and 80 30% universities have targeted APPA Level-3, 60 or somewhere between APPA Level-3 20% 40 and APPA Level-2; 19 8% 10% 20 4 • 1 NMSU Custodial Services is experiencing 2% 0% 0% 0 similar limited resources and budget Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 constraints; • 43% of 242 institutions in the FY14/15 APPA Facilities Performance Indicators (FPI) Survey 1 reported achieving APPA Level-3, and the average level reported was 2.58 – This has been the trend for at least the last three FPI reports; • Because of budget constraints, NMSU will likely have to adopt APPA Level-3, or somewhere between APPA Level-4 and APPA Level-3 (as close to APPA Level-3 as possible). 1 The APPA Facilities Performance Indicators (FPI) survey is conducted annually by APPA to collect comparative analysis facilities management benchmark data from institutions through the U.S.A. and Canada (http://www.appa.org/Research/fpi.cfm). Confidential for The New Mexico State University 29 for Discussion Purposes Only

  18. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS APPA W ORKLOADING AND B UDGET E STIMATING P ROCESS Outputs 1 Inputs Process • Custodial – Cleanable Square Feet (CSF) Standard tasks Inventory 3 by Space Type (classrooms, and frequencies Output for washrooms, entranceways, offices, etc.). core functions • • Building Standard “times only excluding • Floor to perform” for additional duties 2 and • Space ID (e.g.: room number) tasks • Cleanable Square Feet (CSF) supervision: • • Desired Cleanliness Level Standard • FTEs & parameters for All – Average days worked per year. materials and budget for All – Average productive minutes per day. equipment cost cleaning All – Average wage rate. All – Average benefits rate. 1. FTEs and budget for supervision and additional duties assigned to the personnel responsible for the core function must be added to the estimating protocol output to derive the total requirement. 2. Examples of additional duties are (i) custodians performing special event support; (ii) custodians performing snow removal; (iii) custodians hanging pictures or moving furniture; and (iv) custodians preparing dorm room after change of occupant. 3. Estimates based on NMSU Usable Square Feet Inventory developed by the consultant from space inventory data files provided from the CMMS system. NMSU custodial staff should subject the data to field validation to transform it into a Cleanable Square Feet Inventory data set in order to derive full benefit from the information. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 30 for Discussion Purposes Only

  19. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C URRENT FTE S AND A VERAGE W AGE R ATES APPA FY 14-15 FPI Custodial Salary Profile NMSU Custodial Workers Salary Profile Avg Cleaning Avg Composit PCLS-Title-Grade Responders Hourly Workers Cleaning Composite e Rate PCLS-Title-Grade FTE Hourly Rate Responders FTEs Rate Rate Custod Supt/ Mgr 86.0 $33.18 K4004 - Supv,Custodian - 05 6.0 $14.68 Custod Supvr/ Fore 83.0 $20.77 Custod Crew/Team Ldr * 72.0 $16.13 K4003 - Custodial Worker,Ld - 04 7.0 $14.32 171.0 $14.39 Custod/ Hsekeeper 99.0 $13.13 K4002 - Custodial Worker - 02 78.5 $9.82 113.5 $10.56 Othr Custod Positions 53.0 $15.76 K4008 - Custodial Worker,Sr - 03 28.0 $11.72 K2005 - Recycling Tech - 02 2.0 $9.67 K4002 - Custodial Worker - 02 -Locking 1.0 $9.82 * APPA FPI defines Crew/Team Leader and one responsible for Total Custodial Organization FTEs 122.50 planning and coordinating the work of co-workers, as well as guiding and training them while performing the same kind and Supervision/Leadership 6.0 level of work that they do for a majority of the time. Total Doing Cleaning Tasks 113.5 Additional Duty 3.0 • CS salary profile based on positions in organization chart as of 2-7-2017; • Average wage rate for APPA FY14-15 FPI survey participants is considerably higher than CS wage rate; • All workers in the three NMSU custodial workers job titles spend virtually 100% of their time performing cleaning duties; • Custodial Leads are spending virtually 100% of their time as custodial workers and 0% of their time performing leader duties. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 31 for Discussion Purposes Only

  20. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C URRENT I N -H OUSE C LEANING W ORKER FTE S V S APPA G UIDELINES NMSU Current In-House Cleaning Worker FTEs Vs APPA Cleaning Levels Cleaning Level FTEs APPA Level-1 296.2 APPA Level-2 183.4 APPA Level-3 144.5 APPA Level 4 113.4 NMSU (current) 113.5 APPA Level-5 94.1 • Based on 3.8 million usable square feet of spaces plus housing make ready and summer conference cleaning at the time of the assessment; • Assume cleaning Auxiliaries, Housing, and Athletics at APPA Level-2 while cleaning the I&G spaces at the indicated level; • Supervisory, contracted services and additional duties not reflected in the above table and graph (cleaning workers only). Confidential for The New Mexico State University 32 for Discussion Purposes Only

  21. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C USTODIAL O RGANIZATION T OTAL I N -H OUSE FTE S V S APPA G UIDELINES NMSU Current Total In-House FTEs Vs In- House Requirement Cleaning Level FTEs APPA Level-1 304.0 APPA Level-2 191.2 APPA Level-3 152.3 NMSU (current) 123.5 APPA Level-4 121.2 NMSU (Available) 118.9 APPA Level-5 101.9 • In-House FTE requirement adjusted for additional duties, supervision, and contracted cleaning service to compute total In-House FTE requirement, including supervisory minus contracted services FTEs; • The green bar reflects the historical Available FTEs due to historical average number of vacant positions – this further impacts the number of FTEs available for cleaning; • Recharge customer space under Service Level Agreement (SLA) cleaned at APPA Level-2, while I&G spaces are cleaned at the indicated level; • See CleanOpsStaff-3ed Reports R1 through R14 in the CleanOPsStaff-3ed section of this report for custodial worker FTE and cost profile details. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 33 for Discussion Purposes Only

  22. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C USTODIAL O RGANIZATION T OTAL B UDGET N EEDS V S APPA G UIDELINES NMSU Current Total Budget Vs APPA Cleaning Levels Cleaning Level Budget APPA Level-1 $9,692,308 APPA Level-2 $6,386,057 APPA Level-3 $5,244,585 NMSU (current) $4,247,824 APPA Level-4 $4,185,428 APPA Level-5 $3,526,269 • Total budget requirement including contracted services, supervision, and additional duties; • Does not include uniforms, vehicles, utility carts, or other expenses in the custodial organization budget not directly connected to the cleaning function; • Recharge customer space under Service Level Agreement (SLA) cleaned at APPA Level-2, while I&G spaces are cleaned at the indicated level. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 34 for Discussion Purposes Only

  23. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU FTE A ND B UDGET G AP F OR APPA L EVEL -2, APPA L EVEL -3 AND APPA L EVEL -4 APPA Level-2 APPA Level-3 APPA Level-4 Item FTEs Budget Item FTEs Budget Item FTEs Budget $6,068,973 $4,927,501 $3,868,344 Workers Performing Cleaning Tasks 183.4 Workers Performing Cleaning Tasks 144.5 Workers Performing Cleaning Tasks 113.4 Additional Duties 3.0 $97,476 Additional Duties 3.0 $97,476 Additional Duties 3.0 $97,476 Supervisory/Management 6.7 $219,608 Supervisory/Management 6.7 $219,608 Supervisory/Management 6.7 $219,608 Administrative Support Administrative Support Administrative Support Grand Total Requirement 193.1 $6,386,057 Grand Total Requirement 154.2 $5,244,585 Grand Total Requirement 123.1 $4,185,428 NMSU FY 15-16 Actual 123.5 $4,247,824 NMSU FY 15-16 Actual 123.5 $4,247,824 NMSU FY 15-16 Actual 123.5 $4,247,824 Gap (70) ($2,138,233) Gap (31) ($996,762) Gap 0.4 $62,395 NMSU Local Variables • Based on 3.76 million Usable Square Feet (CSF) of spaces and Usable Square Feet 3,763,650 NMSU Local Variables at the time of the assessment; Local Minutes/Day 390 • Assumes that Auxiliaries, Housing, and Athletics is cleaned at Days worked/year 214 Average Wages $10.56 APPA Level-2 in accordance with SLAs in all three above cases; Fringe Factor 1.35 • Assumes that the Custodial Organization will ramp up to handle Hours per Year 2080 housing make ready, turnover, and summer conference support; Supply Costs 0.10 • Based on current supervisor/lead staffing which should be Capital Budget 0.05 evaluated for adequacy as recommended later in this report; Total Spaces 12,568 • There is a gap of 31 FTEs and $996.8K to achieve APPA Level-2 for SLA spaces and APPA Level-3 for I&G spaces operating as an average performing organization; • Custodial Service current staffing is adequate to achieve APPA Level-4 with average operation; • It is estimated that the organization can enhance its results with organizational enhancements. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 35 for Discussion Purposes Only

  24. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C URRENT & H ISTORICAL S TAFFING (V ACANT P OSITIONS ) Confidential for The New Mexico State University 36 for Discussion Purposes Only

  25. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C URRENT & H ISTORICAL S TAFFING (V ACANT P OSITION ) FTE Profile Required In-House FTEs, Level-3 152.6 Current In-House Authorized FTEs 123.2 Historical Average Vacant Positions 4.64 Historical Available FTEs 118.46 • Required FTEs exceeds Authorized FTEs to clean recharge clients spaces at APPA Level-2 and I&G spaces at APPA Level-3; • Available FTEs have historically been less than Authorized FTEs, but vacancy rate is very low compared to industries norms and what is sometimes found at other universities; • Average historical vacancy rate of 4.0% for last three years should not have an extraordinary adverse impact on CS’s ability to achieve acceptable results; • However, vacancy rate is surging to exceed 10% with 12 vacancies at time of this assessment which if not address will adversely impact the ability to achieve acceptable results. – Required FTEs – estimated number of full-time equivalent workers needed to deliver the desired level of service as computed by the APPA staffing protocol Authorized FTEs – full-time equivalent of the number of positions authorized and funded to be filled (e.g., one position for a full-time employee working the entire equals one FTE; two positions for half-time employees working the entire year equals one FTE) – Available FTEs – effective full-time equivalent actually available to perform work after accounting for vacancies (e.g., a full-time position that is vacant half of the year equals 0.5 Available FTEs; a full-time position vacant for 3 months equals 0.75 Available FTEs) Confidential for The New Mexico State University 37 for Discussion Purposes Only

  26. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C URRENT & H ISTORICAL S TAFFING (V ACANT P OSITIONS , FLMA & O THER L ONG T ERM A BSENCES ) Vacant Positions Plus Long Term Medical Absence FTE Profile 20 18 18 Required Total In-House FTEs, Level-3 152.6 16 Current In-House Authorized FTEs 123.2 14 14 14 Vacant Positions 12 12 12 12 12 11 Historical Average Vacant Positions 4.64 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 Historical Average Persons on FLMA 6.00 6 4 Historical Available FTEs 112.56 2 0 • Required FTEs exceeds Authorized FTEs to clean Recharge 7/1/14 8/1/14 9/1/14 10/1/14 11/1/14 12/1/14 1/1/15 2/1/15 3/1/15 4/1/15 5/1/15 6/1/15 7/1/15 8/1/15 9/1/15 10/1/15 11/1/15 12/1/15 1/1/16 2/1/16 3/1/16 4/1/16 5/1/16 6/1/16 7/1/16 8/1/16 9/1/16 10/1/16 11/1/16 12/1/16 1/1/17 2/1/17 client space at APPA Level-2 and I&G space at Level 3; Date • Available FTEs have historically been less than Authorized FTEs due to vacancies; • Average Historical vacancy rate of 4.0% for the last three years and surging to exceed 10% with 12 vacancies at time of this assessment; • 28 FLMA cases for FY 16 estimated at 6 FTEs (4.9%) (NOT VERIFIED YET) ; • Vacant positions plus extended medical absence pushes the effective vacancies to 18 (9.4%) further reducing the Available FTEs somewhat, but not on a one-for-one basis since some of this absence is accounted for in the APPA protocol local variable Average Number of Days Worked Per Year . – Required FTEs – estimated number of full-time equivalent workers needed to deliver the desired level of service as computed by the APPA staffing protocol Authorized FTEs – full-time equivalent of the number of positions authorized and funded to be filled (e.g., one position for a full-time employee working the entire equals one FTE; two positions for half-time employees working the entire year equals one FTE) – Available FTEs – effective full-time equivalent actually available to perform work after accounting for vacancies (e.g., a full-time position that is vacant half of the year equals 0.5 Available FTEs; a fulltime position vacant for 3 months equals 0.75 Available FTEs) Confidential for The New Mexico State University 38 for Discussion Purposes Only

  27. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C USTODIAL S ERVICES W ORKERS R ETIREMENT E LIGIBILITY P ROFILE Custodial Workforce Retirement Eligibility Profile : • Custodial Services has historically experienced a low turnover rate, however, as noted in the preceding slides, there were 12 vacant positions at the time of the site visit; • There were 33 custodians eligible for retirement at the time of the site visit; • The graph in this slide shows the retirement eligibility rate rising to 44 over the next five years; • high-performing custodial organizations must be supported by a recruitment and hiring process that is capable of filling vacant positions within two weeks of the position becoming vacant; • FS will have to take action to address the likely increase in personnel separations due to retirements. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 39 for Discussion Purposes Only

  28. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS F INDING AND R ECOMMENDATION – R ECRUITMENT AND H IRING Finding-X Filling vacant custodian position takes too long. • While Custodial Services has historically experienced a low turnover rate there were 12 vacant positions at the time of the site visit with 33 custodians eligible to retire; • The retirement eligible population will grow to 44 in five years – 35.7% of authorized positions; • Based on interviews with workers and administrative staff, the current process of hiring custodian can take as long as three months or more; • For a segment of the workforce where there are always vacancies and the required skill set is not complex and/or the skills can be developed by the employer, taking longer than two weeks to fill a position is not adequate to support a high-performing cleaning organization; Recommendation-X: • Form an Action Team made up of representatives from all groups that play a role in hiring and retaining custodial employees, including NMSU Central Human Resources. The team should formally map the recruitment and hiring process to eliminate non-valued added steps. The goal should be to reduce the time to fill a vacant custodial position to two weeks or less. • Adopt the idea that except for the requirement for background checks, custodial positions should not be subjected to the same process used to hire higher skilled personnel. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 40 for Discussion Purposes Only

  29. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS F INDING AND R ECOMMENDATION – R ECRUITMENT AND H IRING Recommendation-X (continued): • The University should formalize a process that is continuously recruiting and hiring custodial workers to reduce the time to fill vacant positions to two weeks or less; • The University should make multiple selections from a single recruitment when the applicant pool contains multiple qualified candidates; • NMSU should also focus on employee retention in addition to reducing the time to fill vacant positions; • The above mentioned Action Team should conduct a formal mini-compensation study for the custodial positions to define the recruitment competitive area, and compare hourly wages and other compensation elements such as, but not limited to fringe benefits and shift differentials to those in the recruitment competitive area; • The Action Team should coordinate with FS staff working on the custodial worker training program to determine if FS can be in a position to train candidates who do not already have cleaning experience. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 41 for Discussion Purposes Only

  30. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS O RGANIZATIONAL S TRUCTURE A ND W ORKER TO S UPERVISOR -L EADER R ATIO Confidential for The New Mexico State University 42 for Discussion Purposes Only

  31. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS C URRENT O RGANIZATIONAL S TRUCTURE Observations: • The current organization is staffed to be managed and led by a Manager , 6 Supervisors , and 7 Custodial Worker Leads ; • The frontline workers carry the job titles Custodial Worker and Custodial Worker, Sr.; • Based on interviews with the management/supervisory staff, it is not clear what percentage of the Custodial Worker Leads time should be spent performing cleaning tasks and what percentage should be spent assisting the supervisors performing the following non-cleaning activities: – Assistance in providing guidance and directions for the frontline custodial workers; – Assistance in planning and coordinating the work of the frontline custodial workers; – Assistance in conducting quality assurance activities (cleanliness inspections and audits) ; – Assistance in communicating with building occupants on matters related to cleaning their building; • Based on interviews with Custodial Workers , and Custodial Workers Leads, the Custodial Workers Leads spend virtually 100% of their time functioning as Custodial Workers; • The span of control for supervisors appear to be a challenge considering that the Custodial Worker Leads are not trained to function as true Crew Leaders, and are not performing as Crew Leaders; • The three levels in the Custodial Worker title provide for promotional opportunity for custodians – these promotional opportunities are a positive aspect and should not be abandoned. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 43 for Discussion Purposes Only

  32. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS W ORKER TO S UPERVISOR -L EADER R ATIO Supervisory and Leadership Observation: • If the Custodial Leads actually worked as leads instead of workers, the NMSU Workers-to-Supervisor/Lead Ratio of 7.46 would be comparable to that reported by the 242 FY 14-15 FPI participants, and considered acceptable; • However, since the NMSU Custodian Leads work as workers close to 100% of their time, the NMSU Workers-to-Supervisor/Lead Ratio jumps to 19.30 which implies: – The workers do not have enough guidance and direction; – The supervisors do not have enough assistance planning and coordinating the work of workers; – There is not enough staff guiding and training the workers; • The NMSU Direct Reports-to-Supervisor Ratio is also higher than all benchmarks, further enforcing the conclusion that the NMSU custodians do not have enough supervision and leadership. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 44 for Discussion Purposes Only

  33. F INDINGS AND R ECOMMENDATIONS Confidential for The New Mexico State University 45 for Discussion Purposes Only

  34. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS C USTODIAL S ERVICES E NHANCEMENT P ROGRAM Finding-1: Need to transform into a high-performing professional cleaning organization: • To compensate for staffing and budget constraints, there is a need to transform Custodial Services into a modern day, high-performing professional cleaning organization. Facilities Services has taken the first step in this transformation by undertaking this management assessment. Recommendation-1: • FS undertake a formal Custodial Services Enhancement Program (CSEP) to be developed and implemented by a formally appointed Custodial Services Enhancement Program Implementation Team (CSEP-IT) made up of Facilities and Services employees and stakeholders from throughout the campus. • It is recommended that as part of the CSEP, the CSEP-IT develops an Integrated Cleaning Management Plan ( ICMP ) that officially prescribes the level of cleanliness required for each category of space, and establishes appropriate standards for all key aspects of the custodial operation. The plan should address but not be limited to: (1) the adopted policies and concepts of cleaning; (2) adopt an industry standard upon which to base staffing, workloading, and budget; (3) standards for chemicals, consumables, supplies, tools, and equipment; (4) standard operating procedures (SOPs) for key cleaning and operating processes; and (5) other elements critical to a high-performing cleaning operation. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 46 for Discussion Purposes Only

  35. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS C USTODIAL S ERVICES E NHANCEMENT P ROGRAM Recommendation-1 (continued): • Aspects to consider: – The FTEs and budget estimated by the APPA staffing protocol assumes the work is being done by an average organization, with average supplies and equipment, average trained staff, average productivity rate, and average processes and procedures – high- performing organizations can produce better than predicted results; – The staffing and budget analysis contained in this report is based on useable square feet of space without validation that the space is cleanable. Validation by the CS is likely to find spaces in the analysis that should be removed; • Important Note: Finding-1 and Recommendation-1 should be considered the foundation which supports all of the other individual findings and recommendations contained in this report. While the other findings and recommendations are listed individually in the context of the subject matter they relate to, they should be viewed as integrated components of this foundation, and approached in a thoughtful, methodical, and integrated fashion. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 47 for Discussion Purposes Only

  36. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS O RGANIZATIONAL S TRUCTURE – S AMPLE S TRUCTURE Finding-2: Revise Leadership Duties and Consider Different Organizational Structure: • NMSU custodial supervisory and leadership duties are being performed by the supervisors with only occasional random assistance from the Custodial Worker Leads. The percentages of time devoted to leadership duties by the Leads is too small to be effective, and is not conducive to developing highly-skilled crew leaders and supervisors; • Position description for Custodial Worker Leads adequately describes appropriate duties expected of such a position, however, the holder of these positions are not properly trained to perform the duties and are not performing them; • The current position description for Custodial Worker Lead does not prescribe a percentage of time to be spent performing leadership duties vs. cleaning tasks – this has resulted in virtually 100% cleaning; • The Custodial Manager does not have adequate administrative, training, and quality assurance support, resulting is the manager spending too much time taking phone calls and chasing day-to-day issues, detracting from time to devote to customer outreach and organizational strategic activities. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 48 for Discussion Purposes Only

  37. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS O RGANIZATIONAL S TRUCTURE – S AMPLE S TRUCTURE ( CONTINUED ) Recommendation-2: • FS review the pros and cons of consolidating the supervisory duties into a smaller number of positions, and increase the Leads positions so that the Workers-to-Supervisor/Lead Ratio becomes closer to the 5.58 FY 14-15 participant average, and no greater than the NMSU current 7.56 ratio as shown in the previous slide; • FS rewrite Custodial Worker Lead position descriptions to prescribe that at least 50% of the time be spent performing the leadership duties, and 50% performing cleaning tasks; • FS collects and reviews Supervisor and Crew Leader position descriptions from high- performing cleaning organizations for review and benchmarking; • If this adjustment is made, it should be done in a manner that would preserve a career ladder for custodial workers. Additionally, this evolution should only be undertaken in a manner that avoids adverse personnel actions such as demotions and pay cuts, in order to not adversely impact workforce moral. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 49 for Discussion Purposes Only

  38. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS O RGANIZATIONAL S TRUCTURE – S AMPLE S TRUCTURE Recommendation-2 (continued): • FS consider the Pro and Cons of adapting a custodial organization structure similar to the sample in this slide; • Assign Crew Leader 50% leadership duties; • Ensure Workers-to-Supervisor/Lead Ratio does not exceed 10 based on FTEs ; • Workers-to-Supervisor/Lead Ratio computed as (Number of workers)/(Number of Supervisors + 50% of the number of Leads); • Crew leaders would be responsible for 4 hours of cleaning, and 4 hours leading the crew and providing audits and inspections for quality control, as well as communicating with the building occupants; • This is a change that has personnel and workforce morale implications, and must be implemented in a thoughtful and orderly manner, so as not to decrease the morale of the workforce; • This change should not be made without ensuring there are well trained individuals available for new empowered Crew Leaders positions – it is not enough to be a good Custodial Worker in order to be a good crew leader; • The term “ Crew Leader ” is being used here generically, and FS should use a term that fit best into the NMSU job title system, however, there must be a concerted effort to recast how the FS workforce currently thinks of a Custodial Worker Lead . Confidential for The New Mexico State University 50 for Discussion Purposes Only

  39. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS A DMINISTRATIVE T RAINING , AND Q UALITY A SSURANCE S UPPORT Finding-3: Need for Administrative, Training, and Quality Assurance support: • The Custodial Manager does not have adequate support in the areas of administrative, training, and quality assurance. This causes the manager to spend too much time taking phone calls and chasing day-to-day issues detracting from time to devote to customer outreach and organizational strategic activities; • The Custodial Manager does not have ready access to information upon which to judge organizational performance, and does not have administrative support to help assembly such information; • There is no central entity responsible for quality assurance and workforce training – these are two functions that high-performing cleaning organizations are staffed to perform with their own in-house personnel; Recommendation-3: • FS evaluate the value of providing the Custodial Manager with dedicated resources to support the administrative, training, and quality assurance areas; • The goals of the support should be to: – Provide value from information contained in the CMMS system and other University information systems holding data that would contribute to custodial performance analysis and decision making; – Assist the Custodial Manager and Supervisors in developing written standard operating procedures (SOPs); – Assist the Custodial Manager and Supervisors in developing and providing consistent skills training for the workers; – Assist the Custodial Manager and Supervisors in developing and executing a formal structured quality assurance program that records cleanliness inspection/audit results, analyze trends, and tracks corrective action; – Allow the Custodial Manager and Supervisors more time to reach out to customers and work on strategic organizational enhancement activities. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 51 for Discussion Purposes Only

  40. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS T RAINING Finding-4: Need for an in-house managed formal training program and an in-house trainer: • While Custodial Services has a stated goal of providing training to the custodial workers, no formal cleaning skills training is being provided to the workers on a consistent basis; • While the mandatory training on safety and compliance appear to be taking place, there is no formal cleaning skills training for new workers nor is there cleaning skills retraining for existing workers; • FS custodial workers typically are assigned to shadow another worker to learn what is expected – high-performing custodial organizations recognize that this approach tends to lead to inconsistent results, and probable perpetuation of poor practices and techniques; • The inconsistency reported by the customer focus group participants can be traced back to the lack of a formal training program and SOPs; • FS Custodial Services adopted the Buckeye HONORS program as the framework for its procedures and training, however, the workers are not well versed in the program, and most of them are not familiar with the concepts at all – no worker had seen the flow diagrams in the HONORS manual, nor did they report ever having a discussion about them; • None of the workers interviewed were familiar with the APPA concept of cleaning levels, and could not describe the level of cleanliness expected from them. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 52 for Discussion Purposes Only

  41. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS T RAINING Recommendation-4: • FS take charge of the custodial worker cleaning skills training program and assign to one or two FS staff member(s) as a primary responsibility. It is not unusual for a custodial organization with 100+ custodial workers to have someone on staff responsible for cleaning skills training; • This duties likely would not require a full FTE and can be combined with other duties as necessary. It can also be shared between two positions to ensure continuity for vacation and other absences; • Ensure the training is presented from formally documented material that is integrated with the organization’s adopted concept of cleaning, and the equipment and supplies actually being used by the organization; • Cleaning skills training should be provided for new employees and retraining should be provided to existing employees; • Since CS has a large population of workers for which English is their language or Spanish is their only language, CS should consider steps to provide training in Spanish; • CS should also consider sponsoring free English as a Second Language classes for workers during their off hours; • Certificates of completion should be awarded to employee who successfully complete the training and acquisition of cleaning skills should play a part in custodial workers promotions. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 53 for Discussion Purposes Only

  42. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS S UPERVISORY AND C REW L EADER T RAINING AND P ROFESSIONAL D EVELOPMENT Finding-5: Need for supervisory and crew leader training and professional development: • While 4 of the 6 CS supervisors have attended the APPA Supervisor Toolkit training and there are plans to have the other two attend in the near future, supervisors do not regularly participate in other cleaning professional development activities; • There is no professional development program for Custodial Worker Leads; • While there is superior knowledge of the APPA concepts of cleaning at the management level, there is only casual familiarity at the supervisor level, and virtually no familiarity at the worker level; Recommendation-5: • FS develop a cleaning professional development program to provide both technical cleaning and leadership professional development for its Supervisors and Custodial Worker Leads; • FS consider the value of allowing Supervisors to attend cleaning professional conferences and trade shows paid for by the NMSU; • FS consider the value of allowing the Manager and Supervisors to make benchmark visits to other colleges and universities known to have high-performing cleaning organizations; • Require Manager and Supervisors to formally share the knowledge they gain with staff at all levels of the organization. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 54 for Discussion Purposes Only

  43. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS E QUIPMENT Finding-6: Need to review the equipment inventory and equipment procurement program: • CS reported spending only $9,231 (0.25% of labor cost) for equipment in FY 14-15 – a rule of thumb used by the Consultant is any annual equipment budget less than 5% of labor cost warrants further review ; • This level of annul spending on equipment except for one-time exceptions is considered typical by the Custodial Manager; • CS current equipment inventory consists of only 88 pieces for 113 authorized custodial workers; • CS ‘pieces per custodial worker’ is very low compared to other clients the Consultant has worked with. One client with a similar workforce had 462 pieces of equipment in inventory. Recommendation-6: • CS review its approach to equipping its custodial workers to ensure there is an equipment program in place that provides the correct quality and quantity of equipment; • Engage the services of an independent cleaning equipment expert with no connection to vendors or suppliers, to assist in conducting an cleaning equipment needs analysis based on the specific buildings and cleaning needs on the NMSU campus; • Formalize the equipment inventory database to contain necessary data elements about each piece of equipment to support procurement decisions based on age, life cycle, condition, and economic productivity rates. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 55 for Discussion Purposes Only

  44. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS E QUIPMENT Recommendation-6 (continued): • Conduct random inventory validation and condition inspection throughout the year so by year-end, all equipment would be inspected and accounted for; • Add age and condition information, and end-of-life estimates to the inventory database; • Develop a equipment replacement plan based on expected service life, age and condition, and economic productivity rates; • Include a line in the budget to fund the equipment replacement plan in a proactive fashion – do not rely on year-end funds; • Evaluate the value of providing basic equipment preventative maintenance and repair service in-house by acquiring an individual with the appropriate skill set – likely not a full FTE; • Ensure the custodian training program properly trains custodians to perform the equipment operator care tasks prescribed by the equipment manufacturer. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 56 for Discussion Purposes Only

  45. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS S TANDARDIZED P ROCESSES AND P ROCEDURES Finding-7: Need to review and redevelop standardized processes and procedures: • CS has the making of standard processes and (SOPs) in the form of the Custodial Core Function list, the HONORS manual with flow diagrams, and basic generic cleaning schedules, however, the workers are not well trained on these items and there is no program to ensure worker compliance. Recommendation-7: • FS review and redevelop standard processes and SOPs, and train the workers to perform their work in accordance with the SOPs; • FS establish a program to ensure workers are performing their work in accordance with standard processes and SOPs; • This will help to address the issue of inconsistent service mentioned most often by the customer focus group participants. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 57 for Discussion Purposes Only

  46. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS P ROJECT T ASKS Finding-8: Need for a program to ensure project tasks are performed as prescribed: • CS is not performing the quarterly and annual interim and restorative floor care tasks prescribed in the APPA Guidelines for APPA Level-3. The absence of these and other project tasks contribute to shorter service life of surfaces, promote dirt build-up, and increase the difficulty of routine cleaning; • CS Core Function List prescribes Carpet Extraction and Re-Finish Hard Surface Floors frequency as every other year; • APPA Level-3 prescribes frequency for Interim Floor Care as quarterly and Restorative Floor Care as annually; • Since floor care is such a larger component of the cleanliness determination, it is not possible to achieve APPA Level-3 CS infrequent floor care activity. Recommendation-8: • It is recommended that CS review its tasks and frequencies in the Custodial Core Function List , and reinstate interim and restorative tasks consistent with what is prescribed in the APPA Guidelines for APPA Level-3; • Consider a designated project crew who would not be allowed to perform recharge work to ensure I&G spaces receive appropriate project work. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 58 for Discussion Purposes Only

  47. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS J ANITOR C LOSETS AND J ANITOR C ARTS Finding-9: Need for cleaner orderly janitor closets and carts: • During the cleanliness inspection, the Consultant noted that janitor closets and carts could stand to be cleaner, more uniform, more orderly, and more organized. Recommendation-9: • It is recommended that CS develop a uniform standard for organizing and stocking janitor closets and carts. After these standards are developed, it is recommended that color pictures be taken of a janitor closet and cart that meet the standard, and be posted in each closet and placed in each cart. The workers should be required to participate in several “ Closet and Cart Stand-Down Days ” where they would be allowed to defer an hour or so of regular cleaning to perform a quality job of cleaning and organizing their closets and carts. Cleaning and organizing the closets and carts should then become a routine task and a regular inspection item. The APPA Guidelines workloading protocol includes time for custodians to clean closets and carts; • Some cleaning professionals believe that if the janitor closets and carts are not clean and orderly then it is very likely that the spaces to be cleaned are also are not clean and orderly. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 59 for Discussion Purposes Only

  48. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATIONS I NFORMATION S YSTEMS – F ULL U SE O F S TAFFING A ND O PERATION S OFTWARE Finding-10: Need to use technology to assist in workloading, staff assignment and scheduling: • CS owns the license for the APPA CleanOpsStaff- 3ed™ custodial operation and staffing software, and has begun to make use of it. Recommendation-10: • It is recommended that Custodial Services fully implement the APPA CleanOpsStaff- 3ed™ software. It is recommended that several buildings be selected to serve in a pilot program, and that APPA CleanOpsStaff- 3ed™ software be fully implemented in these buildings as proof of concept. Implementation should proceed in a phased manner until the remaining buildings are work loaded, scheduled, balanced, and audited/inspected under the APPA protocol supported by the APPA CleanOpsStaff- 3ed™ software. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 60 for Discussion Purposes Only

  49. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATION I NFORMATION S YSTEMS – P ERFORMANCE I NDICATORS R EVIEW A CTIVITY Finding-11: Need to make use of custodial performance indicators: • Modern day high-performing custodial organizations have access to high-quality administrative and information support to assist managers with collecting and analyzing custodial performance data. NMSU’s custodial organization would benefit from having ready access to information that would assist management with information-driven operational decisions. Examples of key performance indicators that should be collected and analyzed on a regular basis include, but not limited to, Cost/CSF by building and/or area, Supplies Use Rate by building and/or area, Absenteeism Rate, Vacancy Rate by crew, CSF/FTE, Cleanliness Inspection Scores, Equipment Age and Condition data, complaint trends, and Accident/Incident data. Recommendation-11: • It is recommended that FS evaluate the benefits of establishing a Custodial Performance Indicators Review Program, under which key custodial performance indicators as mentioned in this finding would be analyzed and reviewed in regular recurring review sessions with participants from Custodial Services and other FS work units to provide a second set of eyes. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 61 for Discussion Purposes Only

  50. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATION : NMSU A UDIT /I NSPECTION AND Q UALITY A SSURANCE P ROGRAM Finding-11: Need for a formal quality assurance program: • CS uses a modified audit and inspection system that does not provide for frequent enough inspections of each building. There is no systematic plan for auditing and inspecting spaces. This could mean that a building could go for years without getting a quality assurance audit. Additionally, inspection are done informally at the discretion of the supervisor, and there is no method of detecting trends for taking corrective action on issues before they adversely impact the building occupants. Recommendation-11: • It is recommended that CS review Chapter 7 of the APPA Guidelines book, and bring its audit/inspection program in line with the 10% Random Selection for Extrapolated Results audit protocol. The audit package generation process for this protocol is fully automated by CleanOpsStaff-3ed ™, and the inspections can be conducted using iPhones, iPads, iPods, and Android devices or printed inspection sheets. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 62 for Discussion Purposes Only

  51. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATION C LEANABLE S QUARE F EET I NVENTORY D ATA S ET Finding-12: Need for a Cleanable Square Feet Data Set: • NMSU Custodial Services started developing its Cleanable Square Feet Inventory Data Set during this assessment. The Consultant has imported Usable Square Feet data into the APPA operation and staffing software. The next step is for FS Custodial Services to validate the Usable Square Feet data to transform it to become a Cleanable Square Feet Inventory Data Set. Recommendation-12: • It is recommended that CS set a timeline for completely validating the CleanOpsStaff-3ed ™ usable square feet data set provided by the Consultant. It is recommended that Custodial Services select several buildings to serve as a pilot project group to fully develop the cleanable square feet inventory and fully implement CleanOpsStaff- 3ed™ for the pilot. After a proof of concept phase for the pilot project, CS should phase in several more buildings at a time, until all spaces in CleanOpsStaff-3ed ™ inventory file provided by the consultant have been validated to be cleanable or non-cleanable. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 63 for Discussion Purposes Only

  52. F INDINGS A ND R ECOMMENDATION C USTOMER P ERCEPTIONS – C USTOMER O UTREACH P ROGRAM Finding-13: Need for enhanced customer communication: • Comments and survey scores from FS, and customers rate Communication as the area in need of the most improvement. Customer focus group participants stated that they do not know what custodial services to expect, or who to contact if they have custodial issues. While the customer must take some responsibility to be informed, the primary responsibility to communicate about its services falls to CS. It is fortunate that NMSU has a Building Coordinator/Manager program in place which increases the opportunity to improve communication. Recommendation-13 : • It is recommended that CS evaluate whether it is making the highest and best use of the Building Coordinator/Manager Program. Closer ties between CS and the Building Coordinators/Managers can improve the ability for CS, and the customer to have more productive interactions aimed at improving communication. • It is recommended that CS review its current presence on the FS website, and ensure it has web pages dedicated exclusively to custodial services that provide accurate and current information to the campus about the custodial services program which can be reached from myNMSU with minimum mouse clicks. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 64 for Discussion Purposes Only

  53. FY 14-15 APPA FPI C OMPARATIVE A NALYSIS Confidential for The New Mexico State University 65 for Discussion Purposes Only

  54. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C OMPARISON T O C OHORTS AND S UMMARY B ENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI) Custodial Cost/GSF $0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 $1.60 $1.80 Institution Custodial New Mexico St Univ Cost/GSF Research High New Mexico St Univ $1.12 RMA All Research High $1.27 All APPA All RMA $1.29 All All APPA $1.41 Public All Public $1.41 12,000-19,999 All 12,000-19,999 $1.54 • Observations: • NMSU cost per GSF is less than all summary benchmarks: o Low wage labor market most significant factor; o Personnel position vacancies minor factor; o Authorized positions below the number commensurate with the desired cleaning level. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 66 for Discussion Purposes Only

  55. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C OMPARISON T O C OHORTS AND S UMMARY B ENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI) Wage Rate Comparison: Custod/ Hsekeeper Avg Salary Custod Othr Custod Custod Custod/ Supvr/ Custod $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 Institution Supt/ Mgr Crew/Team Hsekeeper Fore Avg Positions Avg Salary Ldr Avg Salary Avg Salary New Mexico St Univ Salary Avg Salary Cohort Average $9.99 New Mexico St Univ $25.26 $14.68 $14.32 Overall for All Participants $33.18 $20.77 $16.13 $13.13 $15.76 Research High $30.11 $19.39 $14.99 RMA $12.78 $17.37 RMA Research High $31.45 $18.93 $14.62 $12.67 $16.27 Public $34.50 $21.01 $43.47 $13.95 $16.46 Overall for All Participants 12,000-19,999 $28.95 $19.75 $16.56 $13.63 $15.10 Cohort Average $27.34 $18.52 $14.13 $12.10 $17.49 12,000-19,999 Public • Observations: – NMSU average salary rate is lower than all summary benchmarks; – NMSU average salary rate is lower the cohort average. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 67 for Discussion Purposes Only

  56. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C OMPARISON T O C OHORTS AND S UMMARY B ENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI) Benefit Rate Comparison: Benefit Institution Rate New Mexico St Univ 34.0% Overall for All Participants 50.2% RMA 46.8% Research High 41.6% Public 47.2% 12,000-19,999 59.1% Cohort Average 42.8% • Observations: • NMSU fringe benefits is less than all summary benchmarks; • NMSU fringe benefits is less than all the cohort average . Confidential for The New Mexico State University 68 for Discussion Purposes Only

  57. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C OMPARISON T O C OHORTS AND S UMMARY B ENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI) Performance Indicators Comparison: Custodial Custodial Custodial Students Custodial GSF Custodial Institution Custodial Cost Cost/ Staffing Density Reported Cleaned Cost/GSF Student (GSF/FTE) Service Level New Mexico St Univ 12,902 3,220,411 $3,606,733 $1.12 $280 31,511 2.00 All APPA 13,106 3,500,525 $4,788,591 $1.41 $404 34,899 2.00 All RMA 16,727 3,785,388 $4,399,208 $1.29 $330 36,501 2.00 All Research High 16,136 3,755,406 $4,773,796 $1.27 $338 34,351 2.00 All Public 15,003 3,910,630 $5,171,174 $1.41 $311 35,246 2.00 All 12,000-19,999 15,248 2,782,297 $3,964,062 $1.54 $262 32,073 2.00 Appalachian St Univ 17,932 2,344,307 $3,504,280 $1.49 $195 26,755 3.00 Iowa St Univ 34,732 6,906,309 $7,186,128 $1.04 $207 50,596 Univ Cal/Irvine 30,736 5,281,130 $4,886,476 $0.93 $159 64,799 4.00 Univ Cal/Santa Cruz 17,866 3,002,921 $3,768,309 $1.25 $211 50,554 Univ Colorado/Boulder 28,399 4,907,736 $4,702,821 $0.96 $166 39,109 4.00 Univ Colorado/Denver 18,270 3,760,109 $3,453,125 $0.92 $189 36,506 2.00 Univ Idaho 8,834 2,830,777 $2,749,326 $0.97 $311 47,180 3.00 Univ No Carolina/Greensboro 14,915 3,050,926 $4,450,452 $1.46 $298 27,486 3.00 Univ No Dakota 12,420 3,625,200 $4,912,079 $1.35 $396 37,478 3.00 Univ Oregon 22,832 3,857,650 $4,839,509 $1.25 $212 38,577 2.00 Univ So Alabama 16,462 2,662,397 $3,271,677 $1.23 $199 29,582 2.00 Wright St Univ 13,753 3,345,782 $4,142,206 $1.24 $301 36,767 2.00 Cohort Average 19,763 3,797,937 $4,322,199 $1.17 $237 40,449 2.80 Confidential for The New Mexico State University 69 for Discussion Purposes Only

  58. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C OMPARISON T O C OHORTS AND S UMMARY B ENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI) Custodial Cost Per GSF Comparison: Observations: Custodial Cost/GSF $0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 $1.60 $1.80 • Cost/GSF is lower than the Univ Colorado/Denver Univ Cal/Irvine cohort average; Univ Colorado/Boulder Univ Idaho • Cost/GSF is lower than all Iowa St Univ summary benchmarks; New Mexico St Univ Cohort Average • Cost/GSF is lower than all Univ So Alabama except four cohorts; Wright St Univ Univ Cal/Santa Cruz • Low Cost/GSF driven by Univ Oregon All Research High lower wage rate and under- All RMA staffing. Univ No Dakota All APPA All Public Univ No Carolina/Greensboro Appalachian St Univ All 12,000-19,999 Confidential for The New Mexico State University 70 for Discussion Purposes Only

  59. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C OMPARISON T O C OHORTS AND S UMMARY B ENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI) Custodial Cost Per Student Comparison: Observations: Custodial Cost/ Student $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 • Cost/Student is higher than Univ Cal/Irvine Univ Colorado/Boulder the cohort average; Univ Colorado/Denver Appalachian St Univ • Cost/Student is lower than Univ So Alabama all summary benchmarks Iowa St Univ except one; Univ Cal/Santa Cruz Univ Oregon • Cost/Student is lower than Cohort Average All 12,000-19,999 all except four cohorts; New Mexico St Univ Univ No Carolina/Greensboro • Low Cost/Student driven by Wright St Univ lower wage rate and under- All Public Univ Idaho staffing. All RMA All Research High Univ No Dakota All APPA Confidential for The New Mexico State University 71 for Discussion Purposes Only

  60. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C OMPARISON T O C OHORTS AND S UMMARY B ENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI) Custodial Staffing Density (GSF/FTE) Comparison: Observations: • GSF/FTE is significantly lower than the cohort average; • GSF/FTE is lower than all summary benchmarks; • GSF/FTE is lower than all except three cohorts; • Each NMSU custodial worker is responsible for fewer square feet of space than most custodial workers reported in the APPA FY 14- 15 FPI. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 72 for Discussion Purposes Only

  61. A SSESSMENT R ESULTS NMSU C OMPARISON T O C OHORTS AND S UMMARY B ENCHMARKS (APPA FY 14-15 FPI) Custodial Reported Service Level Comparison: Observations: • NMSU reported achieving Reported Service Level-2 in the APPA FY 14-15 FPI; • Most cohorts reported Level- 3 or Level-4; • Reported Service Levels in the FPI survey are determined formally by audit for some participants and by professional informal estimation by others; • The FPI survey will only accept whole numbers as input. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 73 for Discussion Purposes Only

  62. THE END Confidential for The New Mexico State University 74 for Discussion Purposes Only

  63. Q UESTIONS Confidential for The New Mexico State University 75 for Discussion Purposes Only

  64. APPENDIX Confidential for The New Mexico State University 76 for Discussion Purposes Only

  65. APPENDIX A SSESSMENT A PPROACH Data Analysis and Site Visit Phase Pre-Visit Phase Review • Interviews; • Assessment kickoff Webinar; • Build data and information • Information Validation; • Information Request; model for; • Audit/Inspections/Tours; • Requested information; • Analyze all data and • Out brief of preliminary • Plan Site Visit. information; impressions. • Agree to lock in and freeze data. Final Report • Revise and create pre- Post Final Report Final Draft Report final report; • • Receive client comments Webinars/phone • Write Final Draft report; on Pre-Final report; discussion for report • Client review and comment • Deliver Final Report; presentation and on final draft. • Webinar/phone clarification. discussion of pre-final report. On site Recap Confidential for The New Mexico State University Approach Details 77 for Discussion Purposes Only

  66. APPENDIX A SSESSMENT A PPROACH • Pre-Visit Phase Activities – Pre-Visit phase start immediately upon receipt of a purchase order or other form of official notice to proceed; – Pre-visit phase will consist of information requests and exchanges, email exchanges, phone conversations, online meetings via GoToMeeting, and preliminary data analysis; – Client appoints an individual with authority and knowledge of the custodial operation to serve as primary point of contact for the assessment. It is critical for Client to have a single individual who would ensure all Client support to the project is coordinated; – Hold online kickoff meeting with appropriate people to ensure the assessment objectives are fully understood; – Provide Client with information request, including information templates, list of documents, and information needed prior to the site visit; – Client provides requested documents and information prior to the visit; – Client provides all data and information electronically (Excel spreadsheet is preferred format for data and numeric; Word or PDF is fine for narrative information); – Client and consultant jointly develop site visit schedule to include interviews, data review, and building inspections and other tours. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 78 for Discussion Purposes Only

  67. APPENDIX A SSESSMENT A PPROACH • Final Pre-Visit Online Document and Data Review Online Meeting – Appropriate Client Facilities Department project team personnel meet with me via online meeting to review Client provided documents, information, and data and to finalize site visit schedule. • Site Visit Phase – Visit Client for four to five days to conduct interviews, inspect facilities, and collect additional documents, data, and information as needed; – Provide a debrief of preliminary impressions of visit prior to my departure. • Data Analysis and Report Writing Phase – Analyze all data and information collected in all previous project phases; – Develop findings and recommendations, and share draft products with Client for comment; – Hold online distance meetings as necessary (up to 4 hours as part of fixed fee) for clarification of Client provided information and Client review comments; – Deliver the final draft report for Client comments prior finalizing the report. The final draft can generally be submitted within three weeks of returning from the site visit. • Final Report Delivery – Deliver one electronic PDF version and three hard copies of final report; – Participate in up to three (3) hours (as part of the fixed price) of discussion of the final report via online meetings for presentation and clarification of the final report; – Generally deliver the draft report within a week after receiving client’s final comments on the final draft. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 79 for Discussion Purposes Only

  68. S UPPORTING S LIDES APPA FPI C OHORT P ROFILE Adj Avg Age Total Enrollm Cust Grnds Maint Total Bldg No. APPA Aux Bldg Age Mission Acres/ Current Replmt Institution Funding Carnegie Class ent Service Service Service GSF-GSM Bldgs CRV/GSF Region Svcs Range Critical Hectares Value Maintained Owned Range Level Level Level Bldgs Maint Owned 3,220,411 214 35.5 425 $1,300,000,000 New Mexico St Univ Public Research High RMA 12,000-19,9 Inc 30-39 2.00 2.00 3.00 $403.68 Appalachian St Univ Public Masters SRAPPA 12,000-19,9 Exc 30-39 3.00 3.00 3.00 3,073,510 92 30.3 314 $1,049,383,026 $341.43 Iowa St Univ Public Research Very High MAPPA 20,000+ Exc 6,835,666 230 1,984 $3,600,911,150 $526.78 Univ Cal/Irvine Public Research Very High PCAPPA 20,000+ Exc 20-29 4.00 3.00 4.00 5,281,130 144 29.0 174 $4,721,738,000 $894.08 Univ Cal/Santa Cruz Public Research Very High PCAPPA 12,000-19,9 Exc 40-49 3.00 3,002,921 238 40.0 2,020 $1,916,792,025 $638.31 Univ Colorado/Boulder Public Research Very High RMA 20,000+ Exc 40-49 4.00 2.00 3.00 4,932,953 361 47.8 265 $3,234,924,162 $655.78 Univ Colorado/Denver Public Research High RMA 12,000-19,9 Exc 20-29 2.00 2.00 2.00 3,760,109 34 26.0 128 $1,568,401,357 $417.12 Univ Idaho Public Research High RMA 5,000-11,99 Exc 40-49 3.00 3.00 3.00 2,830,777 92 40.0 412 $947,354,716 $334.66 Univ No Carolina/Greensboro Public Research High SRAPPA 12,000-19,9 Exc 30-39 3.00 2.00 3.00 3,273,905 76 37.7 266 $1,773,311,210 $541.65 Univ No Dakota Public Research High CAPPA 12,000-19,9 Exc 40-49 3.00 3.00 3.00 3,652,200 80 48.0 349 $1,172,011,033 $320.91 3,857,650 134 32.0 295 $2,893,599,820 Univ Oregon Public Research Very High PCAPPA 20,000+ Exc 30-39 2.00 3.00 3.00 $750.09 3,899,908 143 40.0 1,250 $736,320,850 Univ So Alabama Public Research High SRAPPA 12,000-19,9 Exc 40-49 2.00 1.00 2.00 $188.80 3,345,782 79 23.0 235 $1,542,456,500 Wright St Univ Public Doc/Research MAPPA 12,000-19,9 Exc 20-29 2.00 3.00 2.00 $461.02 Confidential for The New Mexico State University 80 for Discussion Purposes Only

  69. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS Confidential for The New Mexico State University 81 for Discussion Purposes Only

  70. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS FS G RAND T OTAL FTE R EQUIREMENT Confidential for The New Mexico State University 82 for Discussion Purposes Only

  71. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R1 FS G RAND T OTAL FTE R EQUIREMENT FS Grand Total FTE Requirement for Housing, Athletics and Auxiliaries Cleaned at APPA Level-2 and I&G Cleaned at APPA Level-3 Subtotal 126.56 13.75 5.29 145.60 Routine Project Seq Building Seasonal Total FTE FTE FTE 1 I&G Spaces Cleaned @ APPA Level-3 97.07 10.79 107.86 2 Auxiliaries Spaces @ APPA Level-2 12.48 1.18 13.66 3 Housing Common Areas @ APPA Level-2 7.55 0.85 8.40 4 Athletics Spaces @ APPA Level-2 9.46 0.93 10.39 5 Dorms and Apartment Make Ready 3.82 3.82 6 House Make Ready 1.18 1.18 7 Summer Conference Support 0.30 0.30 FTEs for cleaning worker only. Management, Supervisory and additional duties FTEs not included in this table. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 83 for Discussion Purposes Only

  72. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS I&G S PACES Confidential for The New Mexico State University 84 for Discussion Purposes Only

  73. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R2 I&G S PACES FTE R EQUIREMENT BY S PACE C ATEGORY B Y L EVELS I& G Spaces APPA Guidelines Custodial FTE Requirement by Category by Level Report Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 2,270,444 8,763 259.09 15,516 146.33 21,140 107.40 29,740 76.34 39,826 57.01 Total sq. ft. per No of sq. ft. per No of sq. ft. per No of sq. ft. per No of sq. ft. per No of Seq Space Category Cleanable custodian cust. custodian cust. custodian cust. custodian cust. custodian cust. sq. ft. 1 Research Lab without Hazardous Waste 404,449 6,364 63.55 9,630 42.00 12,470 32.43 22,366 18.08 71,254 5.68 2 Washroom 68,060 2,050 33.20 2,821 24.13 2,821 24.13 2,821 24.13 2,821 24.13 3 Office with Carpet Floor 609,254 10,862 56.09 20,354 29.93 37,153 16.40 60,131 10.13 94,617 6.44 4 Classroom With Carpet Floor 221,366 10,942 20.23 23,556 9.40 26,299 8.42 36,350 6.09 38,554 5.74 5 Classroom With Hard Floor 88,223 8,133 10.85 15,207 5.80 25,397 3.47 34,530 2.56 38,556 2.29 6 Public (Circulation) with Carpet Floor 390,915 19,909 19.64 49,747 7.86 70,647 5.53 116,520 3.36 130,637 2.99 7 Public (Circulation) with Hard Floor 132,804 7,432 17.87 20,483 6.48 31,024 4.28 38,256 3.47 40,315 3.29 8 Office with Hard Floor 72,222 7,534 9.59 13,634 5.30 24,842 2.91 32,977 2.19 43,257 1.67 9 Library with Hard Floor 47,074 9,396 5.01 17,683 2.66 20,059 2.35 39,990 1.18 46,679 1.01 10 Utility 9,219 3,634 2.54 4,773 1.93 8,492 1.09 15,193 0.61 39,967 0.23 11 Patient Treatment Area --Hard Floor 4,563 2,675 1.71 2,675 1.71 2,675 1.71 2,675 1.71 2,675 1.71 12 Auditorium Seating & Foyer 37,864 5,013 7.55 12,091 3.13 28,088 1.35 60,711 0.62 364,977 0.10 13 Library with Carpet 101,123 18,635 5.43 40,332 2.51 80,821 1.25 115,451 0.88 135,632 0.75 14 Dormitory Lounge 20,601 5,061 4.07 8,788 2.34 18,557 1.11 45,919 0.45 161,831 0.13 15 Cafeteria with Hard Floor 4,602 10,106 0.46 14,148 0.33 14,148 0.33 14,148 0.33 14,148 0.33 16 Nursing Station --Hard Floor 1,276 5,173 0.25 5,173 0.25 5,173 0.25 5,173 0.25 5,173 0.25 17 Vending 2,485 4,991 0.50 12,151 0.21 18,428 0.14 20,333 0.12 22,336 0.11 18 Entranceway 780 4,053 0.19 6,987 0.11 10,959 0.07 17,837 0.04 28,724 0.03 19 Locker/Changing Room - No Shower 1,122 11,106 0.10 11,308 0.10 11,308 0.10 11,308 0.10 11,308 0.10 20 Gymnasium (Wood Floor) 3,748 15,871 0.24 31,469 0.12 68,526 0.06 208,575 0.02 898,183 0.00 21 Shower Room 203 6,222 0.03 6,222 0.03 6,222 0.03 6,222 0.03 6,222 0.03 22 Custodial Closet 11,186 801,216 0.01 801,216 0.01 801,216 0.01 801,216 0.01 801,216 0.01 3/6/2017 FTEs for cleaning worker only. Management, Supervisory and additional duties FTEs not included in this table. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 85 for Discussion Purposes Only

  74. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R3 I&G S PACES FTE S AND C OST OF C LEANING FOR APPA L EVEL -3 BY B UILDING Routine FTEs Project FTEs Custodial Areas and Scheduling - Micro Staffing Report By Building 92 Total Buildings - 2,270,444 CSF (21,050 CSF per FTE) Total FTEs Subtotal 7,009 2,270,444 97.07 10.79 107.86 Seq Building Number of CSF Routine Project Total Rooms FTE FTE FTE 1 PSL, CLINTON P. ANDERSON HALL - 263 355 112,646 4.51 0.58 5.09 2 SKEEN HALL - 551 214 87,897 4.55 0.41 4.96 3 FOSTER HALL - 34 218 71,701 4.35 0.37 4.72 4 GERALD THOMAS HALL - 244 362 109,152 4.04 0.55 4.59 5 CHEMISTRY BUILDING - 187 204 77,906 4.16 0.39 4.56 6 BRANSON LIBRARY - 278 143 127,820 4.11 0.45 4.55 7 SCIENCE HALL - 391 317 86,234 3.48 0.39 3.86 8 JETT HALL - 189 178 72,215 3.38 0.38 3.76 9 ED AND HAROLD FOREMAN ENGINEERING COMPLEX - 541 168 66,733 3.16 0.30 3.46 10 MILTON HALL - 83 252 77,137 3.00 0.42 3.43 11 BRELAND HALL - 184 256 71,022 2.73 0.40 3.13 12 O'DONNELL HALL - 287 240 71,447 2.53 0.31 2.84 13 KNOX HALL - 368 203 55,063 2.39 0.27 2.65 14 GARDINER HALL - 188 140 48,365 2.29 0.24 2.54 15 ENGINEERING COMPLEX I - 363 83 37,737 2.18 0.20 2.38 16 STUDENT HEALTH CENTER - 261 87 16,005 2.04 0.19 2.23 17 REGENTS ROW - 248 266 39,160 1.97 0.22 2.19 18 MUSIC BUILDING - 389 84 42,755 1.96 0.18 2.14 19 ZUHL LIBRARY - 461 97 81,275 1.81 0.24 2.04 20 HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BUILDING - 590 201 46,970 1.79 0.20 1.98 21 THOMAS & BROWN HALL - 301 107 40,340 1.78 0.19 1.97 22 CENTER FOR THE ARTS - 631 103 41,601 1.77 0.16 1.92 23 HARDMAN AND JACOBS UNDERGRADUATE LEARNING CENTER - 323 78 41,154 1.70 0.16 1.87 24 BUSINESS COMPLEX BUILDING - 386 120 44,311 1.59 0.19 1.78 25 JOHN WHITLOCK HERNANDEZ HALL - 397 67 34,424 1.61 0.16 1.77 26 DAN W. WILLIAMS HALL - 60 51 27,809 1.45 0.15 1.60 27 GODDARD HALL - 10 85 22,172 1.27 0.12 1.39 28 JORNADA USDA EXP. RANGE HQ (WOOTON HALL) - 585 89 24,640 1.14 0.12 1.26 29 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CENTER - 338 94 38,813 1.04 0.19 1.24 30 PETE V. DOMENICI HALL - 249 110 33,268 1.06 0.13 1.19 FTEs for cleaning worker only. Management, Supervisory and additional duties FTEs not included in this table. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 86 for Discussion Purposes Only

  75. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R3 ( CONTINUED ) I&G S PACES FTE S AND C OST OF C LEANING FOR APPA L EVEL -3 BY B UILDING ( CONTINUED ) Number of Routine Project Total Seq Building CSF Rooms FTE FTE FTE 61 ACADEMIC RESEARCH C - 412C 36 8,567 0.28 0.04 0.32 62 ACADEMIC RESEARCH A - 412A 38 8,130 0.27 0.04 0.31 63 THEATRE SCENE SHOP - 385 8 6,394 0.27 0.03 0.29 64 TENNIS CENTER - 601 10 2,485 0.27 0.01 0.28 65 FOOD SAFETY LABORATORY - 426 13 3,458 0.25 0.02 0.27 66 EQUINE EDUCATION CENTER - 588 12 3,888 0.25 0.01 0.25 67 FIRE STATION - 267 33 4,601 0.22 0.02 0.24 68 ALUMNI & VISITORS CENTER - 44 16 5,164 0.20 0.03 0.23 69 PRESIDENT'S RESIDENCE - 366 19 4,089 0.20 0.02 0.22 70 GENESIS CENTER B - 394B 30 7,913 0.19 0.03 0.21 71 FS OFFICE - 221 27 5,585 0.17 0.03 0.21 72 STUCKY HALL - 282 17 4,384 0.17 0.02 0.20 73 PHOTOVOLTAIC CENTER - 369 12 2,638 0.16 0.01 0.17 74 GENESIS CENTER OFFICE - 394D 7 2,157 0.16 0.01 0.17 75 ANIMAL CARE FACILITY - 347 19 2,906 0.16 0.01 0.16 76 NASON HOUSE - 36 20 2,566 0.15 0.01 0.16 77 STUD BARN - 642 7 5,442 0.13 0.03 0.16 78 PASSIVE SOLAR - 348 14 2,511 0.10 0.01 0.11 79 LIVESTOCK OFFICE - 166 6 1,609 0.10 0.01 0.11 80 SUGERMAN SPACE GRANT BUILDING - 212 12 1,973 0.09 0.01 0.10 81 O'LOUGHLIN HOUSE - 179 12 1,421 0.09 0.01 0.09 82 HORT FARM OFFICE & LABS - 158 8 4,504 0.08 0.01 0.09 83 URBAN ENTOMOLOGY RESEARCH CENTER - 246 10 1,203 0.08 0.01 0.09 84 METABOLISM & PHYSIOLOGY LAB - 372 9 5,353 0.08 0.00 0.09 85 FS CENTRAL HEATING PLANT - 269 8 1,946 0.07 0.01 0.08 86 HORT FARM OFFICE SEED ROOM - 157 3 895 0.06 0.01 0.06 87 LIVESTOCK JUDGING PAVILION - 195 3 3,484 0.05 0.00 0.05 88 PE RESTROOMS/TRACK FIELD - 314 2 86 0.03 0.00 0.03 89 BEEF OFFICE - 241 4 1,291 0.02 0.00 0.02 90 LEYENDECKER PSC SUPT RESIDENCE - 308 12 1,588 0.02 0.00 0.02 91 ANIMAL SCIENCE SHOP - 375 1 2,842 0.00 0.00 - 92 HORSE FARM-HORSE BARN - 507 15 3,979 0.00 0.00 - FTEs for cleaning worker only. Management, Supervisory and additional duties FTEs not included in this table. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 87 for Discussion Purposes Only

  76. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R3 ( CONTINUED ) H OUSING S PACES FTE S AND C OST OF C LEANING FOR APPA L EVEL -3 BY B UILDING ( CONTINUED ) Number of Routine Project Total Seq Building CSF Rooms FTE FTE FTE 61 THEATRE SCENE SHOP - 385 8 6,394 0.27 0.03 0.29 62 TENNIS CENTER - 601 10 2,485 0.27 0.01 0.28 63 FOOD SAFETY LABORATORY - 426 13 3,458 0.25 0.02 0.27 64 EQUINE EDUCATION CENTER - 588 12 3,888 0.25 0.01 0.25 65 FIRE STATION - 267 33 4,601 0.22 0.02 0.24 66 ALUMNI & VISITORS CENTER - 44 16 5,164 0.20 0.03 0.23 67 PRESIDENT'S RESIDENCE - 366 19 4,089 0.20 0.02 0.22 68 GENESIS CENTER B - 394B 30 7,913 0.19 0.03 0.21 69 FS OFFICE - 221 27 5,585 0.17 0.03 0.21 70 STUCKY HALL - 282 17 4,384 0.17 0.02 0.20 71 PHOTOVOLTAIC CENTER - 369 12 2,638 0.16 0.01 0.17 72 GENESIS CENTER OFFICE - 394D 7 2,157 0.16 0.01 0.17 73 ANIMAL CARE FACILITY - 347 19 2,906 0.16 0.01 0.16 74 NASON HOUSE - 36 20 2,566 0.15 0.01 0.16 75 STUD BARN - 642 7 5,442 0.13 0.03 0.16 76 PASSIVE SOLAR - 348 14 2,511 0.10 0.01 0.11 77 LIVESTOCK OFFICE - 166 6 1,609 0.10 0.01 0.11 78 SUGERMAN SPACE GRANT BUILDING - 212 12 1,973 0.09 0.01 0.10 79 O'LOUGHLIN HOUSE - 179 12 1,421 0.09 0.01 0.09 80 HORT FARM OFFICE & LABS - 158 8 4,504 0.08 0.01 0.09 81 URBAN ENTOMOLOGY RESEARCH CENTER - 246 10 1,203 0.08 0.01 0.09 82 METABOLISM & PHYSIOLOGY LAB - 372 9 5,353 0.08 0.00 0.09 83 FS CENTRAL HEATING PLANT - 269 8 1,946 0.07 0.01 0.08 84 HORT FARM OFFICE SEED ROOM - 157 3 895 0.06 0.01 0.06 85 LIVESTOCK JUDGING PAVILION - 195 3 3,484 0.05 0.00 0.05 86 BEEF OFFICE - 241 4 1,291 0.02 0.00 0.02 87 LEYENDECKER PSC SUPT RESIDENCE - 308 12 1,588 0.02 0.00 0.02 88 ANIMAL SCIENCE SHOP - 375 1 2,842 0.00 0.00 - 89 HORSE FARM-HORSE BARN - 507 15 3,979 0.00 0.00 - FTEs for cleaning worker only. Management, Supervisory and additional duties FTEs not included in this table. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 88 for Discussion Purposes Only

  77. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS H OUSING S PACES Confidential for The New Mexico State University 89 for Discussion Purposes Only

  78. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R4 H OUSING G RAND T OTAL FTE AND C OST (I NCLUDES C OMMON A REAS , M AKE R EADY , AND S UMMER C ONFERENCE S UPPORT ) Housing Grand Total FTE and Cost (Includes Common Areas, Make Ready, and Summer Conference Support 32 Total Building - 1,097,668 CSF ($0.43 per CSF) Subtotals 1,097,668 13.69 $405,852 $40,585 $20,293 $466,723 Number Cleanable SF Supply Capital Row Building FTE Direct Labor Cost Total Cost of Rooms (CSF) Cost Cost 1 GARCIA RESIDENCE HALL - 275 586 182,007 3.74 $110,913 $11,091 $5,546 $127,549 2 CHAMISA VILLAGE - 645 1,338 128,001 1.63 $48,305 $4,830 $2,415 $55,548 3 CHAMISA VILLAGE - 605 1,028 98,667 1.55 $46,007 $4,601 $2,300 $52,907 4 COLE VILLAGE - 270 241 165,567 0.97 $28,660 $2,866 $1,433 $32,959 5 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 80 84 21,320 0.83 $24,729 $2,473 $1,236 $28,439 6 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 79 61 13,975 0.73 $21,515 $2,152 $1,076 $24,742 7 AGGIE EXPRESS CONVENIENCE STORE & LAUNDRY - 471 13 6,252 0.63 $18,823 $1,882 $941 $21,647 8 SUTHERLAND VILLAGE - 206 199 121,788 0.63 $18,559 $1,856 $928 $21,343 9 TOM FORT VILLAGE - 214 100 107,100 0.55 $16,321 $1,632 $816 $18,769 10 PINON HALL - 604 190 49,028 0.38 $11,251 $1,125 $563 $12,939 11 GREEK COMPLEX - 271 27 6,418 0.36 $10,783 $1,078 $539 $12,400 12 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 185 69 13,539 0.32 $9,402 $940 $470 $10,812 13 Summer Conference Support 2 460 0.30 $8,811 $881 $441 $10,133 14 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 387E 18 16,200 0.09 $2,804 $280 $140 $3,225 15 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 387D 63 16,182 0.09 $2,801 $280 $140 $3,221 16 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 387B 96 14,368 0.08 $2,487 $249 $124 $2,860 17 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413F 96 14,368 0.08 $2,487 $249 $124 $2,860 18 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413G 96 14,368 0.08 $2,487 $249 $124 $2,860 19 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413H 96 14,368 0.08 $2,487 $249 $124 $2,860 20 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413J 96 14,368 0.08 $2,487 $249 $124 $2,860 21 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462P 32 8,192 0.05 $1,418 $142 $71 $1,631 22 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526U 32 8,192 0.05 $1,418 $142 $71 $1,631 23 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526S 29 7,433 0.04 $1,287 $129 $64 $1,480 24 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526Q 29 7,433 0.04 $1,287 $129 $64 $1,480 25 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526R 29 7,433 0.04 $1,287 $129 $64 $1,480 26 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526X 29 7,433 0.04 $1,287 $129 $64 $1,480 27 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462M 24 6,254 0.04 $1,083 $108 $54 $1,245 28 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462N 24 6,254 0.04 $1,083 $108 $54 $1,245 29 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526T 24 6,254 0.04 $1,083 $108 $54 $1,245 30 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462V 24 6,254 0.04 $1,083 $108 $54 $1,245 31 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462K 16 4,096 0.02 $709 $71 $35 $815 32 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526W 16 4,096 0.02 $709 $71 $35 $815 Confidential for The New Mexico State University 90 for Discussion Purposes Only

  79. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R5 H OUSING C OMMON S PACES APPA G UIDELINES C USTODIAL FTE R EQUIREMENT BY C ATEGORY BY L EVEL R EPORT Housing Common Spaces APPA Guidelines Custodial FTE Requirement by Category by Level Report Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 126,380 8,854 14.3 15,052 8.4 22,191 5.7 31,698 4.0 40,715 3.1 Total sq. ft. per No of sq. ft. per No of sq. ft. per No of sq. ft. per No of sq. ft. per No of Seq Space Category Cleanable custodian cust. custodian cust. custodian cust. custodian cust. custodian cust. sq. ft. 1 Utility 13,643 3,634 3.754 4,773 2.858 8,492 1.607 15,193 0.898 39,967 0.341 2 Washroom 3,789 2,050 1.848 2,821 1.343 2,821 1.343 2,821 1.343 2,821 1.343 3 Public (Circulation) with Carpet Floor 72,033 19,909 3.618 49,747 1.448 70,647 1.020 116,520 0.618 130,637 0.551 4 Dormitory Lounge 12,213 5,061 2.413 8,788 1.390 18,557 0.658 45,919 0.266 161,831 0.075 5 Classroom With Carpet Floor 10,760 10,942 0.983 23,556 0.457 26,299 0.409 36,350 0.296 38,554 0.279 6 Shower Room 1,730 6,222 0.278 6,222 0.278 6,222 0.278 6,222 0.278 6,222 0.278 7 Office with Carpet Floor 4,758 10,862 0.438 20,354 0.234 37,153 0.128 60,131 0.079 94,617 0.050 8 Vending 2,175 4,991 0.436 12,151 0.179 18,428 0.118 20,333 0.107 22,336 0.097 9 Public (Circulation) with Hard Floor 2,919 7,432 0.393 20,483 0.143 31,024 0.094 38,256 0.076 40,315 0.072 10 Entranceway 313 4,053 0.077 6,987 0.045 10,959 0.029 17,837 0.018 28,724 0.011 11 Classroom With Hard Floor 282 8,133 0.035 15,207 0.019 25,397 0.011 34,530 0.008 38,556 0.007 12 Custodial Closet 1,765 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 Housing Common Spaces Only. Does not include Make Ready work or summer conference support. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 91 for Discussion Purposes Only

  80. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R6 H OUSING S PACES FTE S AND C OST OF C LEANING FOR APPA L EVEL -3 BY B UILDING Project FTEs Routine FTEs Total FTEs Custodial Areas and Scheduling - Micro Staffing Report By Building 9 Total Buildings - 126,380 CSF (15,054 CSF per FTE) Subtotal 412 126,380 7.55 0.85 8.40 Building Number CSF Routine Project Total Seq of Rooms FTE FTE FTE 1 GARCIA RESIDENCE HALL - 275 136 79,021 2.89 0.40 3.29 2 CHAMISA VILLAGE - 605 81 7,600 1.01 0.10 1.11 3 CHAMISA VILLAGE - 645 81 7,517 0.94 0.10 1.04 4 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 80 38 10,753 0.74 0.06 0.80 5 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 79 28 5,861 0.63 0.06 0.69 6 AGGIE EXPRESS CONVENIENCE STORE & LAUNDRY - 471 13 6,252 0.58 0.06 0.63 7 GREEK COMPLEX - 271 10 3,025 0.30 0.05 0.35 8 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 185 16 3,423 0.30 0.01 0.31 9 PINON HALL - 604 9 2,928 0.15 0.03 0.18 Housing Common Spaces Only. Does not include Make Ready work or summer conference support. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 92 for Discussion Purposes Only

  81. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R7 H OUSING M AKE R EADY W ORK BY C ATEGORY Houses Make Ready Dorms and Apartment Make Ready 228,888 1.18 741,940 3.82 Total Total FTE of FTE of Seq Space Category Cleanable Seq Space Category Cleanable Effort sq. ft. Effort sq. ft. 2 HOUSE Sleep/Study With Washroom {Res Area} 228,888 1.176 1 APARTMENT Sleep/Study With Washroom {Res Area} 352,957 2.060 • 1.18 FTEs of total effort for houses: 3 DORM Sleep/Study With Washroom {Res Area} 164,953 0.718 − Time of need varies throughout the 4 APARTMENT Sleep/Study Without Washroom {Res Area} 102,147 0.483 5 Apartment Living Room {Res Area} 54,964 0.255 year. 6 Apartment Kitchen {Res Area} 26,940 0.244 7 Apartment Bath {Res Area} 22,334 0.035 8 DORM Sleep/Study Without Washroom {Res Area} 14,117 0.013 9 Apartment Closet {Res Area} 3,528 0.010 • 3.82 FTEs of total effort: − 3.82 FTEs of effort performed May 15 through Aug 1 = 16.5 people ; − Require 10+ weeks surge staffing. Confidential for The New Mexico State University 93 for Discussion Purposes Only

  82. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R8 H OUSING M AKE R EADY BY B UILDING • 4.99 FTEs of total effort for Dorms and Apartments: Housing Dorms and Apts Make Ready FTEs by Building Report − 4.99 FTEs of effort performed May 15 through 30 Total Buildings - 970,828 CSF (194,369 CSF per FTE) Subtotal 4,393 1,489 3.82 Aug 1 = 21.64 people (1,948 minutes/Day x 260 Seq Building Number Total Total FTE Days/Year)/(60 Days to perform x 390 minutes of Rooms MTC per day per worker); 1 COLE VILLAGE - 270 241 377 0.97 2 CHAMISA VILLAGE - 645 1,257 230 0.59 − Require 10+ weeks surge staffing 3 GARCIA RESIDENCE HALL - 275 450 176 0.45 4 CHAMISA VILLAGE - 605 947 174 0.45 5 PINON HALL - 604 181 78 0.20 6 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 387E 18 37 0.09 7 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 387D 63 37 0.09 8 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 387B 96 33 0.08 Housing Houses Make Ready FTEs By Report by Building 9 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413F 96 33 0.08 30 Total Buildings - 970,828 CSF (194,369 CSF per FTE) 10 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413G 96 33 0.08 Subtotal 4,393 459 1.18 11 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413H 96 33 0.08 Seq Building Number Total Total FTE 12 CERVANTES VILLAGE APT COMPLEX - 413J 96 33 0.08 of Rooms MTC 13 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462P 32 19 0.05 14 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526U 32 19 0.05 1 SUTHERLAND VILLAGE - 206 199 244 0.63 15 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526S 29 17 0.04 2 TOM FORT VILLAGE - 214 100 215 0.55 16 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526Q 29 17 0.04 17 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526R 29 17 0.04 • 1.18 FTEs of total effort for houses: 18 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526X 29 17 0.04 19 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462M 24 14 0.04 − Time of need varies throughout 20 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462N 24 14 0.04 the year 21 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526T 24 14 0.04 22 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462V 24 14 0.04 23 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 79 33 14 0.04 24 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 80 46 13 0.03 25 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 462K 16 9 0.02 26 VISTA DEL MONTE APT COMPLEX - 526W 16 9 0.02 27 GREEK COMPLEX - 271 17 6 0.02 28 RHODES-GARRETT-HAMIEL RES HALL - 185 53 4 0.01 Confidential for The New Mexico State University 94 for Discussion Purposes Only

  83. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R9 H OUSING S UMMER C ONFERENCE S UPPORT Summer Conference Support 460 Total Cleanings 115.89 0.297 Total Seq Space Cat Total FTE MTC 1 Summer Conference Room w/o kitchen 93.46 0.240 2 Summer Conference Room w/kitchen 22.43 0.058 • 2.97 FTEs of total effort − 4.99 FTEs of effort performed May 15 through July 31 = 1.31 people (1,948 minutes/Day x 260 Days/Year)/(59 Days to perform x 390 minutes per day per worker); − Require 10+ weeks surge staffing Confidential for The New Mexico State University 95 for Discussion Purposes Only

  84. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R10 H OUSING S UMMER C ONFERENCE S UPPORT Confidential for The New Mexico State University 96 for Discussion Purposes Only

  85. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS A UXILIARIES S PACES Confidential for The New Mexico State University 97 for Discussion Purposes Only

  86. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R11 A UXILIARIES G RAND T OTAL FTE AND C OST Auxiliaries Grand Total FTEs and Cost For APPA Level 2 6 Total Building - 219,138 CSF ($2.13 per CSF) Subtotals 219,138 13.66 $405,162 $40,516 $20,258 16,038 $2.13 $465,936 Number Cleanable SF Direct Supply Capital CSF per Cost per Row Building FTE Total Cost of Rooms (CSF) Labor Cost Cost Cost FTE CSF 1 CORBETT CENTER - 285 291 167,464 9.82 $291,199 $29,120 $14,560 17,053 $2.00 $334,879 2 BARNES & NOBLE NMSU BOOKSTORE - 632 73 37,305 2.68 $79,396 $7,940 $3,970 13,932 $2.45 $91,306 3 FRENGER FOOD COURT - 262 17 5,378 0.47 $14,028 $1,403 $701 11,368 $3.00 $16,132 4 Golf Club House- 597 21 6,564 0.44 $13,002 $1,300 $650 14,970 $2.28 $14,952 5 SPIRITUAL CENTER - 652 7 1,576 0.16 $4,717 $472 $236 9,908 $3.44 $5,424 6 GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE BLDG. - 399 5 851 0.10 $2,821 $282 $141 8,946 $3.81 $3,244 Confidential for The New Mexico State University 98 for Discussion Purposes Only

  87. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R12 A UXILIARIES S PACES APPA G UIDELINES C USTODIAL FTE R EQUIREMENT BY C ATEGORY BY L EVEL R EPORT Additional Description Cell Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 216,581 895,114 26.18 76,415 13.66 84,168 10.45 97,457 8.72 138,675 7.88 Total sq. ft. per No of sq. ft. per No of sq. ft. per No of sq. ft. per No of sq. ft. per No of Seq Space Category Cleanable custodian cust. custodian cust. custodian cust. custodian cust. custodian cust. sq. ft. 1 Office with Carpet Floor 31,594 10,862 2.909 20,354 1.552 37,153 0.850 60,131 0.525 94,617 0.334 2 Public (Circulation) with Hard Floor 597 7,432 0.080 20,483 0.029 31,024 0.019 38,256 0.016 40,315 0.015 3 Research Lab without Hazardous Waste 325 6,364 0.051 9,630 0.034 12,470 0.026 22,366 0.015 71,254 0.005 4 Washroom 6,777 2,050 3.306 2,821 2.402 2,821 2.402 2,821 2.402 2,821 2.402 5 Public (Circulation) with Carpet Floor 51,619 19,909 2.593 49,747 1.038 70,647 0.731 116,520 0.443 130,637 0.395 6 Office with Hard Floor 468 7,534 0.062 13,634 0.034 24,842 0.019 32,977 0.014 43,257 0.011 7 Classroom With Carpet Floor 37,332 10,942 3.412 23,556 1.585 26,299 1.420 36,350 1.027 38,554 0.968 8 Utility 2,160 3,634 0.594 4,773 0.453 8,492 0.254 15,193 0.142 39,967 0.054 9 Vending 22,992 4,991 4.607 12,151 1.892 18,428 1.248 20,333 1.131 22,336 1.029 10 Dormitory Lounge 70 5,061 0.014 8,788 0.008 18,557 0.004 45,919 0.002 11 Cafeteria with Hard Floor 36,752 10,106 3.637 14,148 2.598 14,148 2.598 14,148 2.598 14,148 2.598 12 Auditorium Seating & Foyer 24,631 5,013 4.913 12,091 2.037 28,088 0.877 60,711 0.406 364,977 0.067 14 Custodial Closet 1,264 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 801,216 0.002 Confidential for The New Mexico State University 99 for Discussion Purposes Only

  88. C LEAN O PS S TAFF -3 ED R EPORTS – R13 A UXILIARIES S PACES FTE S AND C OST OF C LEANING FOR APPA L EVEL -2 BY B UILDING Routine FTEs Custodial Areas and Scheduling - Micro Staffing Report Project FTEs By Building Total FTEs 6 Total Buildings - 219,138 CSF (16,038 CSF per FTE) Subtotal 414 219,138 12.48 1.18 13.66 Seq Building Number CSF Routine Project Total of Rooms FTE FTE FTE 1 CORBETT CENTER - 285 291 167,464 9.00 0.82 9.82 2 BARNES & NOBLE NMSU BOOKSTORE - 632 73 37,305 2.40 0.28 2.68 3 FRENGER FOOD COURT - 262 17 5,378 0.45 0.03 0.47 4 Golf Club House- 597 21 6,564 0.39 0.04 0.44 5 SPIRITUAL CENTER - 652 7 1,576 0.15 0.01 0.16 6 GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE BLDG. - 399 5 851 0.09 0.01 0.10 FTEs for cleaning worker only. Management, Supervisory and additional duties FTEs not included in Confidential for The New Mexico State University 100 for Discussion Purposes Only

Recommend

More recommend