Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Custodial Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cary District approves new one-year custodial contract and three-month emergency extension with Citywide Building Maintenance
Summary
Cary School District 26 voted to award a one-year custodial contract to Citywide Building Maintenance for $722,440.42 and separately approved a three-month emergency services agreement running April 3–June 30, 2025 for $199,051.98 after two prior contractors left amid payroll and management problems.
The Cary School District 26 Board of Education approved a one-year custodial services contract with Citywide Building Maintenance for $722,440.42 and separately authorized an emergency three‑month agreement beginning April 3, 2025, for $199,051.98.
The action followed a staff presentation explaining the district solicited bids after its prior contractor, Alpha Building Maintenance, left before the contract end date. District staff said seven bids were received and they reviewed the three lowest before recommending Citywide as the lowest responsive bidder. Operations staff also reported that Citywide provided a weekend quote to clean the district’s planned transportation center at about $2,500 per week, to be revisited if and when the center opens.
District staff introduced Mark Batista, president of Citywide Building Maintenance, who told the board, “We’re a family owned company, 42 years in business. My father is the CEO, and I’m the president running the day to day.” Batista said Citywide’s intent was “to come in and not rock the boat” and to retain as many existing custodial employees as possible to maintain operational continuity.
Board members asked about staff retention and bid pricing. One board member said she had initial hesitation because Citywide’s bid was low but added, “your references checked out, and they were impressive,” and that Batista’s presence on the agenda eased concerns. After brief discussion the board voted to approve both the one‑year contract and the emergency three‑month contract.
Board and staff characterized the emergency extension as necessary after a problematic emergency arrangement with a different vendor, RJB, which staff described as having provided an incorrect quote and declined financial accountability for the error. The board packet included staff explanations of the prior contractor issues and documentation of the bid evaluation.
The board also discussed operational implications including custodial staffing stability and legal options for recoupment from the prior vendor; staff said they would continue to pursue appropriate legal remedies but emphasized the immediate need for clean, safe buildings.
The contracts will take effect as presented: the one‑year Citywide bid for year one at $722,440.42, and the emergency services agreement from 04/03/2025 through 06/30/2025 for $199,051.98.
