SU Group

Back

Major Research University

Operating Budget $1.94 Billion
Research Expenditures $822 Million
Faculty/Students 5,000/29,000
Geographic Urban, 100+ Acres
Years Utilizing SU Group 8

Financial Profile Since Program Inception

Total Maintenance Contract Spend $7.46 Million
Hard Dollar Cost Savings $2.76 Million
Total Invoices Processed by SU 2,985 (vendor invoices sent to SU for review and payment)
Administrative Savings $149,250 (internal cost to process Invoices and remit payment)

The Problem

When facing the need to reduce and control costs, one of the largest areas of spend was equipment maintenance. The University had almost 400 separate contracts (with multiple vendors and expiration dates) encompassing more than 700 pieces of equipment with varying exclusions and limitations.  Contract management was largely decentralized.  The University wanted a program that would centralize the majority of administrative and management roles as well as enable them to measure and leverage their cumulative spend. The University was also concerned about maintaining their vendor relationships and ensuring response time for equipment repair.

The Solution

“The most important thing we’ve heard, again and again from our folks, is that they were able to receive the same level of coverage with SU that they would have received if they had gone through the manufacturer, but at a significant cost savings. This was a major point of importance to the University. There has been no drop-off in the level of service, and the transition was practically seamless. From the University’s perspective, it doesn’t get any better than this.” University Procurement Specialist

After being selected by the University, the first step taken by Specialty Underwriters LLC (SU Group) was to perform a financial audit. With this information, and the support of the Procurement and Finance staff, SU Group met with key Department heads to gain their support and understanding of the program.  Upon the completion and delivery of the audit, a customized equipment maintenance program model was implemented along with the addition of an on-site administrator to act as the contact person for the various departments with respect to equipment changes and program questions.  Vendor relationships and response levels were unaffected and in many cases improved due to competition for the time and material service revenue across the campus.  The University benefited greatly from the new service delivery model through increased uptime of equipment, identification of high frequency repair items and guaranteed hard dollar savings.