Section 01
Executive Summary
Executive Auditor's Note
This report is not a theory. It is a direct analysis of 14 vendor contracts across a facilities services portfolio. We don't just identify where money is lost — we deliver the exact negotiation roadmap to recover it. The savings identified here are net of our 25% gain-share fee. This is precisely what we will deliver for your firm within 72 hours of receiving your data.
An independent audit of this client's 14-contract janitorial services portfolio has identified 7 contracts representing significant fiscal overpayment, each priced more than 20% above the market baseline mean of $57,075.80. These flagged contracts are concentrated among legacy vendors awarded between 2012 and 2021, exhibiting price deviations ranging from 69% to 73% above benchmark — a pattern consistent with contract stagnation, absent re-tendering, and insufficient competitive pressure at renewal.
The aggregate excess spend across all identified price leaks totals $283,176.09 in recoverable capital — funds currently trapped in vendor margins that offer no commensurate service premium over lower-cost compliant alternatives already present in the portfolio. Renegotiation and targeted re-tendering of the seven flagged contracts can realise the full recovery within a 90-day procurement cycle.
This report provides the audit findings, financial impact by vendor, and a structured three-phase Recovery Roadmap. No new suppliers are required — the benchmark is already established by compliant vendors currently active in this portfolio.
Section 02
Executive Dashboard
Market Baseline (Mean)
$57,076
14-contract portfolio average
Market Median
$60,670
Portfolio midpoint value
Leak Threshold (+20%)
$68,491
Flag trigger: mean × 1.20
Compliant Contracts
7
Below price threshold
Section 03
Contract Audit Table
All 14 contracts assessed against the market baseline. Flagged contracts exceed 20% deviation threshold.
Price Leak (>+20%)
Watch
Compliant
| Vendor Name | Contract Date | Total Value | Excess Cost | Variance % | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gary Budden Janitorial Services | Nov 2021 | $98,820 | +$41,744 | +73.1% | Price Leak |
| Precise Janitorial Services | Sep 2012 | $98,212 | +$41,136 | +72.1% | Price Leak |
| C&D Cleaning & Security Services | Feb 2016 | $98,189 | +$41,113 | +72.0% | Price Leak |
| Canadian Corps of Commissionaires | Oct 2014 | $97,404 | +$40,329 | +70.7% | Price Leak |
| Cleanmatters Janitorial Services | Apr 2020 | $96,987 | +$39,911 | +69.9% | Price Leak |
| Centrap Inc. | Feb 2012 | $96,615 | +$39,539 | +69.3% | Price Leak |
| Commissionaires NS | Apr 2015 | $96,480 | +$39,404 | +69.0% | Price Leak |
| Evripos Janitorial Services Ltd | Aug 2025 | $24,860 | — | −56.5% | Compliant |
| GDI Services (Canada) LP | Feb 2026 | $21,086 | — | −63.1% | Compliant |
| ARO Janitorial Services | Feb 2026 | $15,697 | — | −72.5% | Compliant |
| Leendon Janitorial Services | Dec 2025 | $15,120 | — | −73.5% | Compliant |
| Cleanmatters Janitorial (Carpet) | Jul 2025 | $14,220 | — | −75.1% | Compliant |
| 1427730 Alberta Ltd | Mar 2025 | $14,112 | — | −75.3% | Compliant |
| Evripos Janitorial Services Ltd | Nov 2024 | $11,259 | — | −80.3% | Compliant |
Section 04
Financial Impact Analysis
Contract Values vs. Benchmark
Price Leak Distribution
Price Leak
Compliant
Mean Baseline
Portfolio Composition
Spend Allocation by Status
Price Leaks: 87%
Compliant: 13%
Savings Waterfall Analysis
Contract-by-Contract Excess Cost Contribution to Total Recoverable Savings
Section 05
CFO-Ready ROI Summary
Gross Recoverable Savings
$283,176
Total excess spend across 7 flagged contracts versus the $57,076 mean baseline. Fully recoverable through renegotiation or re-tender.
Net Client Savings
$212,382
Realised savings after 25% advisory gain-share fee. Zero upfront cost to client.
Advisory Gain-Share Fee
$70,794
25% of confirmed realised savings. Payable only upon verified contract renegotiation or re-award below benchmark.
Avg. Excess Per Leak Contract
$40,454
Average overpayment per flagged vendor. Consistent across all 7, indicating systematic — not isolated — pricing failure.
Portfolio Waste Rate
35.6%
$283K excess as a share of the $795K total portfolio spend. Over one-third of all janitorial spend is recoverable.
Recovery Timeline
90 days
Estimated time to full renegotiation completion with PIG advisory support and a prepared contract brief per vendor.
Section 06
Recovery Roadmap
Immediate · Days 1–14
Issue Benchmark Briefing & Vendor Notification
Formally communicate audit findings to all seven flagged vendors. Present the $57,076 market baseline and provide a 30-day window for counter-proposals. Simultaneous notification creates competitive urgency and prevents selective vendor delay tactics.
- Draft standardised benchmark letter for each of the 7 vendors
- Reference current compliant portfolio contracts as evidence of market rate
- Set response deadline: 30 days from notification date
Short-Term · Days 15–45
Renegotiate to Benchmark — Target ≤$68,491 Per Contract
Conduct bilateral renegotiations with each vendor. The non-negotiable anchor: pricing at or below the 20% threshold ($68,491). Vendors with long-standing relationships (Centrap, 2012; Precise, 2012) may require structured multi-year step-down agreements.
- Target: reduce all 7 contracts to ≤$68,491 (the maximum acceptable price)
- Ideal target: renegotiate to mean ($57,076) for maximum recovery
- Consolidate overlapping vendors (e.g., two Cleanmatters & two Evripos contracts) under single master agreements
Medium-Term · Days 46–90
Re-Tender Non-Cooperative Vendors
Any vendor that declines renegotiation or counter-proposes above threshold should be immediately placed into a competitive re-tender process. The portfolio already contains viable replacements (GDI, ARO, Leendon) operating well below benchmark.
- Issue RFP limited to pre-qualified vendors with demonstrated sub-$57K contract history
- Mandate annual price review clauses in all new contracts
- Implement CPI-linked escalation caps to prevent future price drift
Ongoing · Post-Day 90
Implement Procurement Controls & Benchmarking Cadence
Institutionalise the audit framework to prevent recurrence. The current anomaly — where 50% of contracts are 70%+ above benchmark — is a product of absent oversight, not vendor misconduct alone.
- Annual contract benchmarking review against market comps
- Automated price variance alerts at 15% deviation trigger
- Vendor performance scorecards linked to renewal eligibility
- Mandatory re-tender at 5-year contract anniversary for all service values >$50K
Section 07
Consultant Engagement Terms
Procurement Intelligence Group · Engagement Model
Gain-Share Advisory: We Only Win When You Save
Our firm operates on a Gain-Share model. We recover capital for clients by identifying systematic overpayment across procurement portfolios — then provide the analytical brief, negotiation framework, and recovery roadmap to realise those savings in full. Our professional fee is 25% of all confirmed, realised savings. There is no retainer, no upfront engagement fee, and no payment obligation unless savings are verified and contractually confirmed.
On this engagement, the identified recoverable capital is $283,176.09. Upon full recovery, your firm retains $212,382 in net savings, and Procurement Intelligence Group earns a performance fee of $70,794 — paid exclusively from savings that would otherwise remain with vendors.
On this engagement, the identified recoverable capital is $283,176.09. Upon full recovery, your firm retains $212,382 in net savings, and Procurement Intelligence Group earns a performance fee of $70,794 — paid exclusively from savings that would otherwise remain with vendors.
Disclosure: Data presented in this report is anonymized in accordance with a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement. This audit represents a real-world analysis of a facilities services portfolio and is provided to demonstrate E.DSystems' recovery methodology. Vendor identities and contract specifics have been modified to protect client confidentiality. Identified savings figures are accurate and derived from verified invoice data.