Landscape & Irrigation

Business Planning Guide Special Edition Part 2

Landscape and Irrigation is read by decision makers throughout the landscape and irrigation markets — including contractors, landscape architects, professional grounds managers, and irrigation and water mgmt companies and reaches the entire spetrum.

Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/428735

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 17 of 31

18 December 2014 Business Planning Guide www.greenmediaonline.com FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS Contracting Maintenance Services In recent years, most parks and recreation agencies have had to deal with the economic realities of reduced revenue and higher person- nel costs. On the recreation side of the house, program fees and charges can be revised and/or programs can be eliminated/given to other service providers to close budget shortfalls. However, on the parks side — which is charged with maintaining the amenities, facilities and landscape — raising additional revenue can be prob- lematic. As a result, many agencies are either considering, or have started to contract for, maintenance services. Contracting for maintenance services, a concept that many times replaces department employees with contract employees, is usually looked at as being "bad" or something that will not provide the same level of service. However, in our new economic reality, contracting may be something that we have no choice other than to accept. If that is the case, there are some lessons learned that can help make contracting successful. Contracts that are professional services contracts, where nego- tiation is possible, are more successful than "low-bid" contracts. Experience shows that a low-bid contract can end up costing more through change orders and other extra work than a contract that allows for ongoing negotiation. Price is important; however, if it is the only criterion at which you are able to look, you will probably end up spending more in the long run. The quality of service provided by a contractor is paramount to any success. The contract needs to clearly state your quality stan- dards so that you get what you want. Do not beat around the bush: if you want your turf to be "weed free," then write your standards that way. Time is not something we are blessed with these days, and spending additional time trying to haggle over agreement on a standard is time you do not have. Standards need to be written as simply and directly as possible, so that a 12-year old child could say whether it does or does not meet standards. QUALITY OUTCOMES ARE THE GOAL Standards for quality should be written as "outcomes," and not based on a performance that you have to count. You want to let the contractor know what you want — for example, weed-free turf. You don't want to direct the contractor on how to make the turf weed free or you will be treating the contractor more like an em- ployee, and you will have to spend time making sure they do what you told them to do. The relationship between the contractor and the agency needs to be written into the contract as that of a partnership where the contractor and agency have a shared interest in maintaining the landscape. One of the arguments against contracting is the belief that a contractor will not care as much as an agency employee. If the contract is an "us versus them" contract, that will be true. If the contract allows for incentives and collaborations, and exten- sions or options based on a partnership, the contractor will look at the contract as a longer term investment, and will hopefully bring skills other than burying the agency in change orders. The ■ BY CRAIG BRONZAN AND SCOTT MILLER How to successfully develop productive partnerships ALL PHOTOS PROVIDED BY CRAIG BRONZAN AND SCOTT MILLER

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Landscape & Irrigation - Business Planning Guide Special Edition Part 2