July 10, 2026

Lessons Learned: Rethinking Elevator Service Contracts in Higher Education

Written by Elevator U

Service contracts can have a lasting impact on elevator reliability, maintenance costs, and the overall lifecycle of a campus vertical transportation portfolio. Yet, despite their importance, they often present challenges that only become apparent after the contract is in place.

During the Elevator U 2026 Annual Conference, three experienced university elevator professionals, who are collectively responsible for managing more than 1,300 elevators, shared practical lessons from years of negotiating service agreements, overseeing modernization projects, and partnering with both OEMs and independent service providers. Drawing on their experiences at the University of Wyoming, the University of Texas at Austin, and Ohio State University, the discussion offered candid perspectives on what works, what doesn't, and how institutions can build stronger, more effective maintenance contracts.

Below are highlights from the panel discussion, featuring practical insights for navigating elevator service contracts.

Defining Expectations from Day One

Q: Where do elevator contracts most often fall short in practice?

Although each university manages a different size portfolio, the panelists agreed on one central theme: the biggest challenges often aren't the provisions written into the contract, they're the situations the contract never anticipated. From unclear responsibilities to limited accountability, thoughtful and very specific contract language can make the difference between a productive partnership and recurring frustration.

University of Wyoming

According to Thrailkill, elevator contracts rarely fall short because of what they include. Instead, problems arise when unexpected situations create gray areas where responsibility isn't clearly defined.

She shared a memorable example involving something as simple as changing a light bulb. After modifying elevator cab ceilings to prevent vandalism, replacing a bulb became far more complicated because the ceiling now had to be unbolted and reinstalled. What was once routine maintenance suddenly became a contractual question: Is it still part of the maintenance agreement, or is it billable labor?

While the example may seem minor, it illustrates a much larger lesson. The greatest contract challenges are often the situations no one anticipated during negotiations, making clear expectations and careful planning essential.

University of Texas at Austin

Pike believes many service agreements lack meaningful accountability. When service expectations aren't met, universities often have little leverage beyond withholding a portion of the monthly maintenance fee, a solution that rarely drives long-term improvement.

Instead, he advocates for contracts that better align the interests of both parties. At the University of Texas at Austin, his team is exploring contract models that reward proactive maintenance, encourage multi-year partnerships, and establish predefined inflation adjustments. The goal is to create agreements that improve system performance while supporting a sustainable relationship between the university and its service provider.

 

The Ohio State University

Baughman emphasized that contract language should be developed by the owner, not the contractor. Ohio State has invested significant effort in writing service agreements that clearly define expectations, establish comprehensive coverage during both business and after-hours operations, and reduce the potential for unexpected charges.

That philosophy comes from experience. After encountering situations where anticipated services were not performed, the university shifted to creating contracts that better protect its interests while maintaining fair, long-term relationships with service providers. The objective is straightforward: ensure the university receives the level of service it expects while allowing contractors to remain successful partners.

Closing the Scope Gap

Q: What's the most common scope gap you encounter?

Even well-written contracts can leave room for interpretation. The panelists agreed that scope gaps are rarely caused by major equipment decisions, they're often the overlooked details that become costly once a project is underway. Careful planning and clearly defined responsibilities can help minimize change orders and avoid unnecessary disputes.

University of Wyoming

For Thrailkill, the most common scope gaps are the small details that seem straightforward during planning but become significant once work begins. Items that appear minor are often assumed to be someone else's responsibility, leading to confusion and unexpected costs.

Drawing on the university's recent installation of eight new elevators across three buildings, she noted that each phase of the project provided an opportunity to identify and correct scope gaps before the next installation. The experience reinforced the value of thoroughly defining responsibilities early and addressing potential issues before construction begins.

University of Texas at Austin

Pike explained that modernization projects present the greatest opportunity for scope gaps. Questions surrounding controller integration, disconnect switches, cab materials, and other technical details can quickly evolve into costly change orders if they are not clearly defined during procurement.

He also noted that some contractors intentionally submit competitive bids with the expectation of recovering profit through change orders. Understanding a contractor's track record is therefore an important part of the evaluation process. Pike emphasized that one of Elevator U's greatest strengths is its network of higher education professionals who openly share experiences and help one another make more informed decisions when selecting service providers.

The Ohio State University

At Ohio State, one recurring scope gap involves the definition of obsolete equipment. Baughman explained that his team carefully defines obsolescence within its contracts as a "condition that does not exist," helping distinguish equipment that is truly no longer supportable from equipment that is simply older but still fully functional.

The university also uses carefully selected terminology, such as "illumination" instead of "lighting", to provide greater flexibility and avoid unnecessary equipment upgrades. This approach helps ensure maintenance decisions are based on operational needs rather than opportunities to sell new products.

Building Contracts That Last

Q: What's one clause or detail you consistently wish had been handled differently?[1] 

Strong contracts do more than define responsibilities, they establish clear expectations for everyone involved. From managing stakeholder assumptions to incorporating performance-based language, the panelists emphasized that thoughtful contract development can prevent misunderstandings and strengthen long-term partnerships.

University of Wyoming

For Thrailkill, one of the biggest challenges isn't the contract language itself, it's ensuring everyone has the same understanding of the project's scope.

During elevator modernizations, stakeholders often assume improvements extend beyond the elevator equipment to include cab interiors or aesthetic upgrades. When those expectations aren't addressed early, disappointment and confusion can follow.

She also reflected on how institutional knowledge plays an important role in contract development. After returning to the University of Wyoming following several years away, she found that the university's service contracts had evolved in ways that favored the service provider more than the institution. Although those changes were made with good intentions, she noted that elevator contracts require specialized industry knowledge and benefit greatly from lessons shared by peers facing similar challenges.

 

The Ohio State University

Baughman emphasized the importance of incorporating performance-based language into service agreements. In his experience, contracts should encourage long-term equipment reliability rather than create incentives for unnecessary repairs or modernization projects.

With proactive maintenance and carefully structured agreements, universities can extend the life of existing equipment while making capital investments strategically rather than reactively. Well-written contracts help align the interests of both the university and the service provider by rewarding long-term performance instead of short-term sales opportunities.

Planning for the Unexpected[2] 

Q: When do change orders feel unavoidable, and when do they feel preventable?

Change orders are an inevitable part of many elevator projects, but not all are created equal. While some result from unforeseen conditions that emerge only after work begins, others can often be avoided through more thorough planning, coordination, and contract development.

University of Wyoming

Thrailkill believes some change orders are simply unavoidable. Existing conditions hidden until demolition, unforeseen damage, vandalism, or obsolete components that require redesign or substitution are all examples of situations that cannot always be anticipated during the bidding process.

However, many change orders can be prevented. In her experience, issues such as inaccurate field measurements, incomplete site verification, and insufficient coordination between project teams are often avoidable with more comprehensive planning before construction begins. Investing time upfront to verify conditions and clearly define project requirements can significantly reduce costly surprises later.

The Ohio State University

Baughman emphasized that many preventable change orders can be avoided long before construction starts through carefully written contracts. Ohio State has focused on incorporating precise language that clearly defines responsibilities and minimizes ambiguity throughout the project.

He noted that seemingly small phrases can have a significant impact on contract interpretation. Defining terms such as obsolescence and carefully using language like "if applicable" helps establish expectations early and protects the university from unnecessary costs and scope expansion. According to Baughman, thoughtful contract language allows institutions to make measured, long-term investments in their vertical transportation portfolios rather than reacting to unexpected expenditures.

Earning a Place on Campus

Q: What would it realistically take for a new bidder to win work on your campus?

Competitive pricing is only one piece of the equation. When evaluating a new service provider, universities are looking for long-term partners that can demonstrate technical expertise, responsive service, and the resources needed to support their campus reliably. For the panelists, confidence in a contractor's capabilities ultimately carries more weight than a low bid.

University of Wyoming

Thrailkill emphasized that capability, not simply interest, is what earns a contractor the opportunity to work on campus.

For the University of Wyoming, that means demonstrating sufficient technical expertise, dependable route coverage, access to manufacturer support across multiple equipment types, and a reliable parts inventory to minimize downtime. Given Wyoming's smaller market and limited number of service providers, ensuring those resources are available is especially important.

Ultimately, she noted that successful service depends on having experienced mechanics who can respond effectively when issues arise.

University of Texas at Austin

Pike explained that the University of Texas benefits from operating in a growing and highly competitive market, creating opportunities to evaluate both established providers and new entrants.

Regardless of the contractor, the university's objective remains the same: develop agreements that allow service providers to operate profitably while delivering the level of reliability and responsiveness the campus requires. By creating incentives for contractors to continually invest in maintenance and system performance, universities can foster stronger long-term partnerships that benefit both parties.

 

Advice for the Next Agreement

Q: What advice would you give another university entering a new maintenance agreement?[3] 

Negotiating a maintenance agreement is about more than selecting a service provider, it's about establishing a partnership that supports the long-term performance of a campus's vertical transportation portfolio. Drawing on decades of experience, the panelists shared practical advice for universities preparing to enter their next contract.

University of Texas at Austin

Pike encouraged universities to rethink the traditional maintenance contract model by creating incentives for proactive performance rather than simply responding to equipment failures.

He suggested exploring agreements that reward uptime, encourage service providers to recommend system improvements, and align profitability with long-term equipment reliability. He also noted that universities may benefit from evaluating alternative approaches to parts procurement, particularly as access to proprietary components can influence contractor performance and competition. The goal, he explained, is to move away from a reactive maintenance model and toward one that rewards continuous improvement and long-term asset performance.

The Ohio State University

Baughman's advice was straightforward: invest the time to write contracts that protect your institution's interests and avoid relying solely on contractor-provided agreements.

He also emphasized the importance of measuring contractor performance. At Ohio State, service requests are managed through an internal call center and tracked using a maintenance management system that monitors response times and completion of work before invoices are approved for payment. Clearly defined response expectations, including emergency entrapments and after-hours calls, help establish accountability while ensuring consistent service across one of the nation's largest university elevator portfolios.

Beyond contract language and performance metrics, Baughman encouraged universities to learn from one another. Sharing experiences and best practices with peer institutions can help strengthen agreements and avoid common pitfalls.

 

People Over Logos

Q: From a macro perspective, how do you think about the service approach of OEMs compared to Independent Service Providers (ISPs)?[4] 

When comparing OEMs and Independent Service Providers (ISPs), the panelists agreed there is no one-size-fits-all answer. While each business model offers different advantages, long-term success depends less on the company name and more on the quality of the relationship, the expertise of the mechanics, and the alignment between the university and its service provider.

The Ohio State University

Baughman observed that independent service providers often take a more hands-on approach to customer relationships, particularly when serving large institutional clients. Their size and flexibility can create a stronger incentive to deliver exceptional service and build long-term partnerships.

Regardless of the provider, he emphasized the importance of carefully reviewing contract language. Even seemingly routine phrases, such as "if applicable," can introduce ambiguity that leads to scope changes and unnecessary costs if expectations are not clearly defined from the outset.

University of Texas at Austin

For Pike, the distinction between an OEM and an ISP is less important than the quality of the people supporting the campus.

Drawing on more than four decades in the elevator industry, he emphasized that experienced, knowledgeable mechanics are often the single greatest factor in a successful maintenance program. Strong technical skills, problem-solving ability, and a commitment to customer service create value regardless of the logo on the truck.

He also noted that many newer ISPs have strengthened their position in the market by recruiting highly experienced mechanics, allowing them to compete effectively with larger manufacturers. Ultimately, while business decisions are made at the corporate level, it is the mechanics working on campus every day who define the university's experience with a service provider.

Measuring Success Beyond the Contract

Q: Do your maintenance contracts deliver the value you expected? Why or why not?[5] 

A successful maintenance agreement should do more than keep elevators operational, it should support long-term reliability, minimize downtime, and encourage continuous improvement. While both panelists acknowledged that their current contracts provide value, they also identified opportunities to better align maintenance strategies with long-term campus goals.

University of Wyoming

For Thrailkill, the value of a maintenance contract often comes down to the individual mechanic assigned to the campus.

Over the years, she has experienced both exceptional and challenging service under the same contract, illustrating how much impact a knowledgeable, proactive mechanic can have on system reliability. In Wyoming's smaller market, where a single mechanic typically supports the university with assistance from neighboring routes when needed, that expertise becomes even more critical.

She also highlighted the importance of parts availability. Whether through technical ingenuity or maintaining a well-stocked inventory, experienced mechanics can significantly reduce equipment downtime and improve the overall value delivered under a maintenance agreement.

University of Texas at Austin

Pike believes traditional full-maintenance contracts often function more like insurance policies than continuous improvement programs. In many cases, service providers are rewarded for responding to failures rather than preventing them.

He sees an opportunity to shift that model by creating incentives for proactive maintenance, planned component replacements, and thoughtful equipment improvements before failures occur. Rather than waiting for breakdowns, universities and service providers should work together to maximize equipment life, reduce callbacks, and make strategic decisions that improve long-term system performance.

Ultimately, Pike believes the greatest value comes from contracts that reward reliability, quality, and continuous improvement, not simply repairing the next failed component.

Closing Thoughts

The discussion highlighted that successful elevator service contracts are built on more than pricing and specifications. They require clear expectations, well-defined responsibilities, measurable performance, and trusted partnerships. While every campus has unique operational challenges, the lessons shared by these university leaders demonstrate the value of learning from one another and continuously refining contract strategies based on real-world experience.

As Elevator U continues to bring together higher education professionals and industry partners, conversations like these help strengthen the management of vertical transportation systems across campuses and reinforce the power of collaboration within the Elevator U community.

Panelists

Ainsley Thrailkill is a Design Engineer at the University of Wyoming, where she oversees a portfolio of 142 vertical transportation units. She manages the university's elevator maintenance and modernization program, with a focus on service contracts, asset management, and long-term system reliability.

Matt Pike is Assistant Director of Vertical Transportation at the University of Texas at Austin, where he oversees more than 500 elevators and escalators. He serves as Vice President of the Elevator U Board and specializes in elevator operations, modernization planning, and service contract strategy.

Robert Baughman is Assistant Director of Support Services for The Ohio State University, where he oversees approximately 700 elevators, escalators, and lifts. He leads maintenance engineering and contract management for one of the nation's largest university vertical transportation portfolios.

Collectively, these three panelists oversee more than 1,300 elevators, escalators, and lifts across some of the nation's largest higher education campuses, bringing decades of practical experience to the discussion.

 [1]Missing M. Pike

 [2]Missing M. Pike

 [3]Missing A. Thrailkill

 [4]Missing A. Thrailkill

 [5]Missing R. Baughman