ESBD_File_331671_Exhibit 3.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP2023-0252
- Issued by
- Mclennan County, Waco City, Texas
About this file
This document is an Exhibit 3 - APPA Level Rankings Chart that provides a framework for evaluating facility management and maintenance service levels. The related state and local contract opportunity is for Facility Management and Maintenance Services at Baylor University located in Mclennan County and Waco City, Texas. The RFP seeks proposals from qualified and experienced firms to provide these services across the Baylor University campus. The chart outlines five levels of facility management, ranging from "Showpiece Facility" to "Crisis Response", with details on customer service, response times, and the ratio of preventative to corrective maintenance.
The RFP does not provide specifics on pricing terms, set asides, incumbent providers, funding requirements, or other salient information. The document focuses on the scope of services and service level expectations for the facility management and maintenance contract.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| ESBD_File_331671_Exhibit 7 FM Equipment List.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ESBD_File_331671_1 RFP FM_7.28.23 (1).pdf | ||
| ESBD_File_331671_Addendum #1 - FM_8.22.2023.pdf | ||
| ESBD_File_331671_Addendum #3 - FM _ 9.6.2023.pdf | ||
| ESBD_File_331671_Exhibit 2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ESBD_File_331671_Exhibit 5.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ESBD_File_331671_2 Submittal Forms FM_7.28.23 (1).pdf | ||
| ESBD_File_331671_3 Exhibits 1- 6 FM_7.28.23 (1).pdf | ||
| ESBD_File_331671_Addendum #2 - FM_8.25.2023.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1 EXHIBIT 3 - APPA Level Rankings Chart
| Description | LEVEL 1 | LEVEL 2 | LEVEL 3 | LEVEL 4 | LEVEL 5 | |
| Showpiece Facility | Comprehensive Stewardship | Managed Care | Reactive Management | Crisis Response | ||
| Customer Service and Response Time | Able to respond to virtually any service, immediate response. | Response to most service needs, typically | ||||
| in a week. | Services available only by reducing maintenance, response times of one month or less. | Services available only by reducing maintenance, response times of one year or less. | Services not available unless directed from top administration; none provided except emergencies. | |||
| Customer Satisfaction | Proud of facilities; have a high level of trust for the facilities organization. | Satisfied with facilities related services, usually complimentary of facilities staff. | Basic level of facilities care. Able to perform mission duties. Lack of pride in physical environment. | Generally critical of cost, responsiveness and quality of facilities services. | Consistent customer ridicule, mistrust of facilities services. | |
| PM -vs- CM | 95-100% | 75 - 94% | 50 - 74% | 25 - 49% | <25% | |
| Maintenance Mix | All PM is scheduled and performed on time. Emergencies (e.g. power outages) are infrequent and handled efficiently. | A well developed PM program; PM done less than defined schedule. Occasional emerg. caused by pump failures etc. | Reactive maintenance high due to systems failing. High number of emergencies causes reports to upper mgmt. | Worn-out systems require staff to be scheduled to react to failure. PM work consists of simple tasks done inconsistently. | No PM performed due to more pressing problems. Reactive maintenance is a necessity due to worn out systems (e.g. doors won't lock, fans lock up, HVAC systems fail). Good emergency response because of skills gained in reacting to frequent system failures. | |
| Aesthetics, Interior | Like new finishes. | Clean/crisp finishes. | Average finishes. | Dingy finishes. | Neglected finishes. | |
| Aesthetics, Exterior | Window, doors, trim, exterior walls are like new. | Watertight, good appearance of exterior cleaners. | Minor leaks and blemishes average exterior appearance. | Somewhat drafty and leaky, rough looking exterior. | Inoperable windows, leaky windows, unpainted, cracked panes, significant air and water penetration, poor appearance overall. | |
| Aesthetics, Lighting | Bight and clean, attractive lighting. | Bright and clean, attractive lighting. | Small percentage of lights out, generally well lit and clean. | Numerous lights out, missing diffusers, secondary areas dark. | Dark, lots of shadows, bulbs and diffusers missing, cave-like, damaged, hardware missing. | |
| Service Efficiency | Maintenance activities appear highly organized and focused. Service and | |||||
| maintenance calls are responded to immediately. | Maintenance activities appear organized with direction. Service and maintenance calls are responded to in a timely manner. | Maintenance activities appear to be somewhat organized, but remain people dependent. Service/ maintenance calls are sporadic without apparent cause. | Maintenance activities are somewhat chaotic and people dependent. Service/maintenance calls are typically not responded to in a timely manner. | Maintenance activities appear chaotic and without direction. Equipment and building components are routinely broken and inoperative. Service and maintenance calls are never responded to in a timely manner. | ||
| Building Systems Reliability | Breakdown maintenance is rare and limited to vandalism and abuse repairs. | Breakdown maintenance is limited to system components short of MTBF. | Building and systems components periodically or often fail. | Systems unreliable. Constant need for repair. Backlog repair exceeds resources. | Many systems nonfunctional. Repair only instituted for life safety issues. | |
| Operating Budget as % of CRV | > 4.0 | 3.5 - 4.0 | 3.0 - 3.5 | 2.5 - 3.0 | <2.5 | |
| Campus Average FCI | < 0.05 | 0.05 - 0.15 | 0.15 - 0.29 | 0.30 - 0.49 | >0.50 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .