Client Feedback

The measurement most vendors leave out

Cleaning contracts are usually judged by the vendor’s own inspections. The vendor decides what to measure, performs the measurement and reports the result. Even done honestly, that is a closed loop — and the people who actually experience the building are outside it.

The consequence shows up as a specific kind of surprise: an account scoring well on every internal metric while the client is quietly deciding not to renew. Nothing in the vendor’s data predicted it, because the vendor was never measuring the thing that mattered.

Ratings that change the outcome

Your team rates the service on a 1–10 scale, and those ratings are weighted directly into the account’s Protex Verified certification.

That word — weighted — is the whole design. Satisfaction is not reported alongside the inspection score as a second opinion; it is an input to the same number. An account that inspects well and whose occupants are unhappy does not certify. We cannot resolve that tension by preferring our own data, because the formula does not let us.

Where in-building screens are deployed, feedback also arrives in one tap at the moment of use — which catches the reaction people never bother to email about.

What happens to a low score

It becomes a corrective action with an owner and a deadline, in the same queue as anything a supervisor finds. And whoever raised it gets a response.

That last part is what keeps the system alive. Feedback mechanisms die from being ignored: people report a problem, nothing visibly changes, and they conclude — correctly — that answering was a waste of time. Response rate is not a communications problem, it is a symptom of whether the previous answers went anywhere.

Trend over snapshot

A single low rating is usually noise. Someone had a bad morning, or walked into a restroom ninety seconds before the scheduled service.

What the account review looks at is the trend: the same area sliding over several weeks, or a score that drops after a change in the building’s use. That pattern is actionable — it usually means the scope no longer matches how the space is being used, which is a re-scope rather than a reprimand.