BOMA seminar tackles commercial cleaning.

Good housekeeping - from budgetary considerations to health issues - was the topic of the day at the recent "Brushing Up on Cleaning" seminar sponsored by the Building Owners' and Managers' Association of Greater New York, Inc. (BOMA).

Four of the industry's top professionals presented a round up of current challenges and new technology in cleaning services for commercial real estate.

Panelists included Joseph K. Collins, president, Collins Building Services, Inc.; Jeffrey S. Edelstein, CBSE, COO, Partners Cleaning Corporation; Perry S. Fine, RPA, vice president - Northeast Region, Triangle Services, Inc.; and Michael Doherty, vice president of Operations, Triumph Cleaning Corporation. The seminar was moderated by Vincent A. Fantauzzi, RPA, Deputy Director of Operations, Park Tower Management, Ltd. and Mary Springer, Quality Control Manager, The Durst Organization.

Joseph K. Collins lead off the afternoon with a historical background of commercial cleaning services. He noted the rivalry between in-house and contract service providers, which dates to the post World War II period when business owners began to contract outside firms for cleaning services in order to be able to concentrate on their primary operations. The 1980's saw owners taking services back in house, but, he said, that due to reduced staffing and cutbacks the trend is now reversing.

Jeffrey Edelstein further explored the issue of contractor versus in-house, stating that while building owners or managers may have greater control over in-house operations, the importance of tenant relations must be taken into consideration when choosing between the two modes of management. He suggested asking the following questions prior to making the choice: Do you have the staff to keep tenants happy? Can you be responsive to special requests and emergencies? Are you fully versed in insurance needs, sales tax changes, current codes and regulations?

Edelstein moved on to cover the effects of proper housekeeping procedures on indoor air quality. Cleaning choices made here can seriously affect employee and tenant health. Three often overlooked problem generators are: vacuums without adequate filter systems; buffers which generate significant amounts of dust particles; and cleaning chemicals. He recommended replacing all acid-based cleaning solutions with citrus based products, and urged the use of new, hospital-grade disinfectants as well as non-oil based polishes (oil attracts and holds dust.)

Lastly, he stressed the importance of adequate employee training in the handling of all cleaning products.

Michael Doherty spoke to those thinking of moving cleaning services in house. He felt that, while there will always be a place for contractors, the recent cleaning contract negotiations left owners with certain definite advantages. For example, the RAB contract gives in-house operators the ability to reduce staff by reducing the spec. In other words, if an owner eliminates the work completely, the staff person responsible for the tasks involved may be let go provided certain stipulations are met. Under the contractor agreement, Local 32 BJ must grant permission for any reduction in staff, with certain exceptions. This dual policy can become a problem for contractors when an owner demands a reduction in staff from a contractor. Putting the reduction into effect may end up in costly litigation with the union.

In the area of tenant retention, according to Doherty, the owner may again have the upper hand. When a tenant requests extra services, the owner has the ability to go beyond budget to keep that tenant happy and in the building. The contractor, however, is torn between tenant wants, owner needs and the bottom line, where he ultimately must make up the discount, which was part of the bid. An in-house department also has a pre-established relationship with the property manager, making quality control easier, and often allowing for more innovative handling of tenant services.

Last up was Perry Fine, RPA, who presented an overview of OSHA standards for blood borne pathogens and how they affect both routine and emergency cleaning procedures. He warned that a written plan, universal precautions, training, and record-keeping were all vital when dealing with this modern, real world problem.

Fine then gave a detailed income and expense analysis comparing averages for the nation as a whole, New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. (Cities were chosen to reflect both union and non-union towns,) He compared cleaning expenses, total operation expense, total income, and the consumer price index between 1980 and 1994. The reassuring results showed that New York, while more expensive than the rest of the country, has done the superior job of managing costs. When inflation is taken into consideration, New York cleaning professionals have done a better job than the rest of the country - actually reducing them significantly.