Laserfiche WebLink
M ® M <br />were necessary to improve the conditions and appearance of these <br />facilities. To this end, specifications were written to allow <br />greater flexibility in evaluation and review of submitted <br />proposals. A quoofaire was included the provider and ato gain beter isight <br />pe formance bondn <br />into the capabilitiesequal <br />to fifty percent (50%) of the contract was required. <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: <br />Staff requested comment from the major facilities served by <br />the present contractor. Several of the complaints or comments have <br />been addressed through modifications to the scope of services. <br />However, comments concerning the quality of work and the appearance <br />of the facilities reflect the desire and ultimately the need to <br />change contractors. <br />Personal inspections of our facilities, as well as <br />evaluation's performed by my staff have shown an inconsistency in <br />quality, appearance, and frequency provided by our present service. <br />Although I have had numerous discussions with the contractor and my <br />staff communicates almost daily about these concerns, I feel that <br />long term improvement is not likely. Based on problems experienced <br />in the past and the litany elements required to properly evaluate a <br />pros ective cleaning service, staff used a;L Request for Information <br />(RF� to obtain detailed information to evaluate the companies <br />rather than a simple bid. Price was not the driving factor in <br />making a determination as to which company could meet the demand <br />for this type service. <br />Evaluation of three (3) companies based on criteria discussed <br />led to the following ranking. <br />1. C1eanNet of Central Florida $147,720.00 annual <br />2. Grosvenor Building Services $121,921.20 annual <br />3. Superior Building Services $115,658.40 annual <br />During the discussions with C1eanNet, we were offered a <br />discount of five percent (5%) on their proposal based upon the <br />addition of the new Courthouse upon completion in 93-94 fiscal <br />year. No pricing for the Courthouse was requested at this time so <br />the service could be tailored to the finished building need. <br />Supplemental services include carpet and window cleaning. <br />Projections for carpet cleaning were based upon approximately one <br />hundred thousand (100,000) square feet annually dry clean method <br />and sixty thousand (60,000) square feet annually extraction method. <br />Based upon these projections, each firm rates as listed. <br />1. C1eanNet of Central Florida $ 9,800 <br />2. Grosvenor Building Services $21,000 <br />3. Superior Building Services $ 9,600 <br />Window cleaning was only offered as a supplemental service by <br />C1eanNet at a cost of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) per <br />session for all buildings. In fiscal year 92-93, we have spent <br />approximately eighteen hundred dollars ($1,800) for one (1) <br />cleaning on only three ( 3 ) buildings. We expect to save twenty one <br />hundred dollars ($2,100.00) during 93-94 based on two (2) cleanings <br />per year (2 x $1,800 = $3,600). Other respondents offered the <br />service via sub -contractors at an unspecified price. <br />Combined comparison <br />supplemental services: <br />®C5 19.9,7 <br />of Contractors including projected <br />17 <br />BOOK 9O��; (A96 <br />