When two Wentworthville providers recommend very different frequencies

Usually one of three things. The providers assumed different areas were included. They assumed different levels of occupancy or traffic. Or one of them applied a standard pattern for that premises type while the other assessed the building. The first two are settled by comparing the area lists and the assumptions; the third is settled by asking for reasoning and by asking what each provider assumed about occupancy.

Occasionally the difference is genuine disagreement about what the premises needs, and that is worth hearing out. A provider proposing less than you expected and explaining why is often more useful than one agreeing with your initial view. Ask what they think would go wrong at the lower frequency, since the answer tells you what they were weighing and whether they have seen that outcome at a comparable premises.

Ask for the frequency against each area rather than the building. Entry and amenities usually need the highest attention because they deteriorate with use and are judged constantly. Offices and meeting rooms deteriorate more slowly. Storage and back-of-house slower still. A proposal reflecting that gradient has been thought about; one applying a single frequency everywhere has not and it is the clearest single test of whether a building was assessed.

Then ask what would change each figure. More people, longer hours, a change of use, wet weather. A provider who can name the drivers is reasoning about your building and will adjust sensibly when circumstances change. One who cannot will treat any future change as a renegotiation rather than as an application of the logic they already used and the reasoning will have to be reconstructed from scratch each time.

Compare the two recommendations against your own experience of the building. You know when it looks worst and which areas generate comments. If a proposal increases attention exactly where you already have problems, that is a good sign regardless of the total. If it adds visits evenly across everything, the total may be right and the distribution wrong and that is worth more than the difference in the two totals.

It is also legitimate to start at the lower frequency with an agreed review. Where the difference between two recommendations is a matter of judgement rather than of scope, testing the lower one for a quarter costs little and produces evidence. Agree in advance what would trigger an increase so the review is a decision rather than a negotiation and both parties know what evidence would settle it.