Facility Maintenance Contract Checklist for Agencies

Published February 21st, 2026

For government agencies in Indianapolis, awarding facility maintenance contracts without rigorous vendor verification is a risk no mission can afford. Inadequate checks open the door to compliance failures, operational disruptions, and financial liabilities that compromise public trust and mission success. The complexity of facility maintenance demands a disciplined approach to ensure contractors possess the licenses, insurance, capacity, and proven performance needed to meet stringent government standards. A systematic, step-by-step checklist serves as a vital tool to streamline this evaluation process, reducing uncertainty and reinforcing accountability. This approach empowers agencies to select vendors who not only meet regulatory requirements but also deliver consistent, high-quality service - safeguarding facility operations and supporting uninterrupted government functions. The following guide lays out the essential verification checkpoints that underpin reliable, compliant, and mission-driven facility maintenance contracts.

Vendor Certification and Licensing: Foundation of Compliance and Trust

Certification and licensing are the first filter in any facility maintenance contract checklist. Before you look at price or schedule, confirm that the vendor is legally cleared to perform every task described in your scope.

Start with state and local contractor licensing. For Indianapolis-area facilities, verify that the vendor holds the correct Indiana contractor licenses for the trades involved: general building maintenance, electrical, plumbing, HVAC, or specialty systems. Request license numbers and classifications, then confirm them through the state licensing portal and any applicable city or county databases. Check status, expiration dates, and any recorded disciplinary actions.

Next, review environmental and safety-related approvals. Facility maintenance often touches cleaning chemicals, refrigerants, waste handling, and potential hazardous materials. Ask for:

• Any EPA-related registrations or certifications relevant to refrigerant handling, waste management, or hazardous material work.
• Documentation of compliance with state and local environmental rules that apply to janitorial chemicals, floor finishes, and disposal practices.
• OSHA-related training records for supervisors and technicians assigned to your facilities.

Federal or regulated facilities require an additional layer of review. Confirm registrations and clearances tied to public-sector work, such as active status in government vendor registration systems, relevant NAICS-aligned licenses, and any facility-specific access or security requirements. The goal is to ensure the vendor's authority matches the security and regulatory posture of your sites.

These artifacts do more than satisfy awarding agency responsibilities. Current, verifiable certifications show that the contractor accepts oversight, invests in training, and understands maintenance compliance as part of the mission, not an afterthought.

From a risk standpoint, undocumented or expired credentials expose the agency to liability, schedule disruption, and findings in audits. Request copies of licenses, certifications, and registrations, then validate them against issuing authorities and keep that verification in the contract file. That discipline gives you a defensible record that the vendor had legal authority to perform the work on day one and supports consistent government facility maintenance compliance across the life of the contract.

Insurance Coverage Verification: Protecting Public Assets and Liability Management

Once licensing and certifications are confirmed, the next gate is insurance. Coverage is not paperwork for the file; it is the financial backstop that shields public property, agency leadership, and the community when maintenance work goes wrong.

Start with three baseline policies that every facility maintenance contractor should carry at appropriate levels:

• Commercial General Liability (CGL): Responds to third-party bodily injury, property damage, and completed-operations claims tied to maintenance activities.
• Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability: Covers employee injuries and protects the agency from being pulled into disputes between the contractor and its workforce.
• Professional Liability / Errors and Omissions: Addresses losses caused by negligent maintenance planning, inspections, or technical advice that lead to system failures or unsafe conditions.

For each policy, require current certificates of insurance issued by the carrier or authorized broker, not draft binders. Confirm effective and expiration dates, policy numbers, and named insureds. The contractor's legal entity on the certificate should match the name on the contract award, not an informal trade name.

Coverage limits need to track with your contract specifications and any agency-wide standards, including best value contract award criteria. Compare requested limits for each site and task - routine janitorial, mechanical work, grounds, or construction-adjacent repairs - against the limits shown on the certificate. Pay attention to:

• Per-occurrence vs. aggregate limits for CGL and whether they align with high-risk activities (roof access, electrical work, heavy equipment).
• Umbrella or excess policies that supplement primary coverage to reach your required thresholds.
• Endorsements such as additional insured status, waiver of subrogation, and primary/noncontributory language, where your agency policy requires them.

Maintenance across multiple facilities raises exposure. A contractor servicing several buildings or campuses draws on the same aggregate limits for all claims in the policy term. When you review multi-site awards, test whether aggregate limits still provide a meaningful cushion once spread across the full portfolio of locations and anticipated task orders.

Documented proof of insurance should sit in the same verified stack as licenses and certifications. Treat it as a living requirement, not a one-time pre-award hurdle. Build in clauses that require the contractor to maintain coverage at specified limits, notify the agency of cancellations or material changes, and furnish updated certificates at renewal. Periodic checks during performance keep the record defensible if auditors or oversight bodies review your contract file.

The cost of ignoring gaps is high: uncovered injuries on public property, property damage without a clear payer, delayed repairs, and disputes that pull staff into prolonged litigation. Inadequate or lapsed insurance shifts risk back onto the agency and, ultimately, the taxpayer. For that reason, insurance coverage at defined limits, backed by verifiable documents and ongoing monitoring, should remain a non-negotiable condition of award and continued performance.

Evaluating Responsiveness and Capacity: Ensuring Multi-Site Maintenance Reliability

Once authority and risk posture are confirmed, the next question is whether the contractor will actually keep your facilities running. That comes down to responsiveness and capacity across the full footprint, not just performance at a single building.

Start with responsiveness evaluation during the solicitation phase. Treat the proposal process as a live-fire drill:

• Track how quickly the vendor acknowledges receipt of the solicitation, answers clarification questions, and submits required forms.
• Note whether responses are complete, accurate, and aligned with your instructions or require repeated corrections.
• Watch for one accountable point of contact versus scattered, inconsistent communication.

Vendors that miss submission milestones or send partial responses under light proposal pressure often struggle when faced with emergency work orders, after-hours calls, or short-fuse task orders.

Next, test the ability to mobilize resources. For multi-site maintenance, ask for a clear description of:

• Normal and surge staffing levels, by trade and by role (lead, technician, inspector, cleaner).
• How crews are scheduled and dispatched across multiple locations, including backup coverage when someone is out.
• Access to vehicles, tools, lifts, and specialty equipment needed to work on several facilities in the same week without delays.
• Procedures for triaging concurrent work orders at different sites while preserving safety and quality standards.

Do not accept generic statements about "adequate staffing." Require the vendor to map personnel and equipment to your specific locations and expected work order volume. The narrative should make it clear how they avoid robbing one site to cover another when schedules tighten.

Capacity ties directly into contract pricing proposal adequacy. A price that assumes minimal labor, shared equipment, or excessive cross-town travel often looks attractive on paper but leads to missed preventive maintenance, deferred repairs, and inconsistent presence. Compare their proposed staffing matrix, labor categories, and estimated hours to the actual travel distances, building sizes, and required response times in your performance work statement.

Scheduling reliability is the bridge between paper commitments and operational reality. Require the vendor to submit sample preventive maintenance calendars and typical response timelines for emergency, urgent, and routine calls. Cross-check those schedules against the proposed headcount and shift structure. If the same technician covers too many buildings or systems on the calendar, you are buying risk, not reliability.

When responsiveness, resource capacity, and pricing assumptions support each other, you gain confidence that work orders will be answered, preventive tasks will occur on time, and facility conditions will not drift below standard. That stability protects mission execution, especially when facilities range from administrative offices to critical operations that cannot afford downtime.

Assessing Past Performance: Verifying Proven Capability And Compliance History

Once capacity looks credible on paper, the next test is whether the contractor has actually delivered reliable facility maintenance under real conditions. Past performance is where you separate theoretical capability from proven execution.

Start by defining what counts as relevant work. Focus on contracts that match your scope and risk profile: multi-building portfolios, mixed-use facilities, critical systems, or regulated environments. Ask for a list of recent government and commercial facility maintenance contracts with:

• Contract type, size, and duration
• Brief description of services and number of sites
• Prime or subcontractor role, including any teaming relationships

For each reference, request a point of contact and permission to speak candidly. When you conduct reference checks, move past general satisfaction questions and drill into performance details:

• Consistency of planned maintenance and inspections against the contract schedule
• Responsiveness to urgent and after-hours calls
• Quality of workmanship and rate of repeat repairs for the same issue
• Adherence to safety rules, site access controls, and regulatory requirements
• Accuracy and timeliness of reports, logs, and invoices

Government vendor qualification steps should also include review of any formal performance evaluations available through internal systems. Look for patterns across contracts rather than single events. Is the contractor consistently rated as meeting or exceeding standards on quality, timeliness, management, and regulatory compliance, or are there recurring flags in the same category?

Corrective action history is equally important. Ask the vendor to disclose any cure notices, show-cause letters, or documented nonconformance tied to facility maintenance. For each item, examine:

• The root cause of the performance issue
• How quickly the contractor responded and stabilized operations
• Whether they implemented sustainable corrective actions or temporary fixes

Consistent delivery, schedule discipline, and clean safety records are strong indicators of reliability. A contractor that finishes work on time, minimizes callbacks, and respects regulatory boundaries usually treats compliance as part of daily operations, not a box-checking exercise.

To structure this assessment, align your review with best value contract award criteria. Build a simple scoring approach that weighs:

• Relevance and complexity of prior contracts
• Documented quality and timeliness from performance evaluations
• Strength and specificity of reference feedback
• Frequency and severity of past corrective actions, along with documented resolutions

Document both the data you gathered and how you interpreted it. When questions arise about why a contractor was selected over a lower-priced offeror, a clear record of past performance analysis, tied to mission risk and government facility maintenance compliance, is your best defense.

Final Checklist and Best Practices: Streamlining the Verification Process for Awarding Agencies

The quickest way to protect mission performance is to turn the contract award verification process into a repeatable checklist instead of a one-off exercise.

Structured Pre-Award Verification Checklist

• Confirm Licensing And Certification
  • Identify every trade and regulated activity in the performance work statement.
  • Collect license numbers, classifications, and technical certifications for each trade.
  • Validate status, expiration dates, and any disciplinary actions through official portals.
  • Verify registrations tied to public-sector work and any facility access or security requirements.
• Verify Insurance Coverage
  • Require current certificates for general liability, workers' compensation, and professional liability.
  • Match legal entity names on certificates to the proposed contractor.
  • Check effective dates, limits, and required endorsements against your contract standards.
  • Assess aggregate limits against the full multi-site portfolio, not a single building.
• Assess Responsiveness
  • Track proposal responsiveness, accuracy, and adherence to instructions.
  • Confirm a single accountable point of contact for coordination.
  • Document any missed milestones or incomplete submissions as early warning indicators.
• Evaluate Capacity For Single And Multi-Site Support
  • Review staffing by trade, shift, and role against required coverage and response times.
  • Check access to vehicles, tools, and specialty equipment for concurrent work at multiple facilities.
  • Compare proposed preventive maintenance calendars and response timelines to available headcount.
• Review Past Performance
  • Collect details on relevant contracts, roles, and number of sites served.
  • Obtain and document reference feedback on quality, timeliness, safety, and regulatory adherence.
  • Review performance evaluations and any cure notices or corrective actions for patterns of concern.

Documentation, Compliance Tracking, And Coordination

• Standardize Records: Use a consistent file structure for licenses, certificates, performance notes, and reference summaries. Link each verification artifact to the specific contract requirement it satisfies.
• Track Compliance Over Time: Establish reminder dates for license and insurance renewals, and assign responsibility for periodic checks during contract performance.
• Coordinate Across Departments: Align procurement, facilities, safety, and legal staff on the same government procurement vendor screening criteria so evaluations do not conflict.
• Integrate With Existing Workflows: Attach this checklist to solicitation templates, evaluation plans, and award recommendation memos so each step is completed and documented before signature.

When these checks are embedded into your routine workflow, they support government acquisition contract checklist standards, reduce mission risk, and create a defensible record of disciplined, outcome-focused facility maintenance awards in Indianapolis.

Comprehensive verification of vendors before awarding facility maintenance contracts is not just a procedural step - it is the cornerstone of safeguarding public assets and ensuring uninterrupted operational readiness. Agencies in Indianapolis that rigorously apply a structured checklist protect their facilities against compliance risks, performance shortfalls, and financial exposure. This disciplined approach translates into tangible outcomes: optimized maintenance continuity, adherence to regulatory standards, and best value procurement decisions that stand up to scrutiny. Leveraging the expertise of a veteran-owned, compliance-driven partner like Day Business Enterprises ensures that government agencies benefit from proven processes grounded in mission-focused service and operational reliability. By adopting thorough verification practices and engaging strategic partners who prioritize accountability and capacity, agencies position themselves for mission success and resilient facility operations. Explore how disciplined vendor screening and trusted partnerships can elevate your facility maintenance contract awards - get in touch to learn more about reliable, mission-ready solutions.