In a prior article we started the comparison of productivity rate of a larger site to a very small site that required travel. The smaller site is distorted due to travel time, loading/unloading and other factors that distorts any productivity numbers that a person would attempt to generate. We also noted that the customer has overruled you in requiring the worker to revisit the same site more than once per day to make sure it is cleaned and stocked. This means that the daily and annual DLH do not make any sense when compared to the larger accounts on the same contract.

A reader comments: "We have a campus type contract that is spread over a very large geographic area. When we average the large (two 150,000 SF sites with the smaller sites, the numbers do not make sense. Any suggestions how to have real productivity numbers?"

Just to make sure our readers understand where we are coming from, SF/hour productivity is dividing the total square footage by the total direct labor hours to arrive at an "average" number. These averages can be deceiving and off if consistent practices are not followed.

The only true comparisons that you can draw are the two larger sites (150,000 and 200,000), which can be compared since the specifications are almost identical. The total DLH (direct labor hours) will vary due to different grounds, garage and other areas that should not be factored into the custodial comparison.

I do not recommend that you even try to compare the smaller accounts (ranging from 700 SF to 9,450 SF) since each one requires unique services and the customer is satisfied with paying the rate you are charging based on work being performed, not productivity.

We will pursue this topic in a future article. Your comments and questions are important. I hope to hear from you soon. Until then, keep it clean...

Mickey Crowe has been involved in the industry for over 35 years. He is a trainer, speaker and consultant. You can reach Mickey at 678-314-2171 or CTCG50@comcast.net.


posted on 7/23/2015