The short answer
A single vendor gives one contract, one standard and one risk review. Multiple vendors give competitive tension and specialist depth, at the cost of more management and more gaps. Most portfolios do best with one primary vendor and specialists where needed.
Side by side
| Single vendor | Multiple vendors | |
|---|---|---|
| Contracts and invoices | One | One per vendor |
| Standards | The same everywhere | Vary by vendor and market |
| Insurance and safety review | Once | Per vendor, at every renewal |
| Pricing | Recurring program pricing across buildings | Competitive tension |
| Accountability | One point of contact | Split between vendors |
| Risk | Dependence on one provider | Coordination gaps |
When a single vendor works
- It has its own crews in every market you need
- It covers the services you need, including at height
- It prices each building separately
- It can scale as you add buildings
When multiple vendors make sense
- Markets outside a vendor's footprint
- Specialized work a primary vendor is not set up for
- Owners who want price competition at renewal
The middle path
One primary vendor for recurring work across the portfolio, with line-item pricing per building, and specialists where the primary is not set up for the work. See when bundling services saves money and national account structures.
How S&K fits
S&K coordinates multi-site portfolios under one contract and one point of contact, with the same standards in every location and local W2 crews. See multi-site and franchise programs.
Score every bidder with the vendor qualification scorecard, or read the full Vendor Selection, Compliance, and Procurement guide. To qualify S&K, ask for our certificates of insurance and safety documentation, or request a quote.
