Why Most Commercial Cleaning Contractors Fail (And What Actually Works)

The commercial cleaning industry has a retention problem. Average contract length hovers around 18 months. Understanding why reveals a structural issue with how most businesses approach facility maintenance.

The typical procurement process treats cleaning as a commodity. RFPs focus on price per square foot. Evaluation criteria emphasize insurance coverage and availability. The lowest qualified bid wins. Three months later, the problems start.

Inconsistent quality. High crew turnover. Communication breakdowns. The property manager spends increasing time managing the vendor instead of managing the property. Eventually, the contract terminates and the cycle repeats with a new provider.

This pattern isn't about individual company failure—it's about systematic underpricing creating systematic underperformance.

The math problem is straightforward. Commercial cleaning operates on thin margins. When contracts are awarded purely on price, providers have limited options: reduce labor costs through higher turnover and minimal training, or reduce service quality by cutting time and product costs. Most do both.

High turnover means constant retraining. New crew members need 3-6 months to learn a property's specifics—where the delicate surfaces are, which areas need extra attention, how to work around business operations. By the time they're proficient, they've often moved to a better-paying position. The cycle resets.

What actually works requires reframing the relationship from vendor management to partnership evaluation.

Instead of price per square foot, evaluate total cost of facility management—including your internal time spent on vendor issues, reputation risk from inconsistent quality, and long-term asset preservation. A provider charging 20% more but requiring 80% less oversight often represents better value.

Instead of generic service specifications, focus on outcomes. What does "clean" actually mean for your specific environment? What are the preservation requirements for your particular surfaces? What's your tolerance for service inconsistency?

Instead of maximizing the number of bids, limit RFPs to providers who demonstrate they understand the difference between cleaning and asset management. Not every provider does, and that's fine—but clarity up front prevents mismatched expectations later.

The structural shift some properties make successfully is moving from transactional vendor relationships to retained service partnerships. Fixed crews who learn the property. Direct owner access for immediate issue resolution. Quarterly reviews focused on continuous improvement rather than reactive problem-solving.

This model costs more initially. It typically delivers better long-term value—measured in asset lifespan, operational consistency, and time reclaimed from vendor management.

The question isn't "what's the cheapest cleaning service." It's "what's the most effective way to protect our facility investment and maintain operational standards."

Different question, different answer, different outcome.