The questions, answered.

We build the programs, the data, and the discipline: operational consulting, program design, training, and readiness. On facilities management engagements, we also carry on-site staffing and 24/7 vendor oversight. The distinction matters because we are an operations partner rather than a real estate one.

We are based in Rockwall, Texas, and the work happens wherever the portfolio is. We currently run 596 facilities across 250 metros in 40 countries, 128 of them United States locations across 33 states. Engagements are staffed to the site rather than to a branch network, so distance from Rockwall is not what decides whether we can take a building.

We start on the floor. You cannot maintain what you cannot name, and most registers we inherit were accurate on the day they were exported. The gap between that file and the equipment in the room is where unplanned failure lives, so the first priority is a verified register rather than a tidier spreadsheet.

We perform a physical walkdown against the record, asset by asset, correcting tagging and hierarchy in place. It is unglamorous, and it is the only method that produces a number you can plan against.

L5 is the final commissioning level, where systems are proven under integrated load. Arriving there with better than 95% of the register verified means the maintenance program starts against real data on day one instead of being rebuilt during the first year of operation.

Yes, we physically tag assets as part of the walkdown, so the label in the field and the identifier in the system are the same string. A register that does not match the tag on the unit sends a technician to the wrong asset, which is worse than having no register at all.

Lifecycle strategy runs from acquisition through decommissioning, so replacement timing comes off asset condition and age rather than off whatever failed most recently. That is what turns a capital request into a forecast and the source of the 25% asset life extension.

Catapult™ should start on a new build earlier than most people expect. The least costly findings come from the operational design review while drawings can still change. By the time a building is in commissioning, the questions are about verification rather than design, and the corrections cost an order of magnitude more.

An ORZ is a bounded area of readiness with its own owner, criteria, and gate, that covers people, process, systems, and support. Twenty or more of them run in parallel on a typical site, which is what makes readiness trackable rather than a single status everyone argues about.

Every zone is checked against its criteria and the result is a pass or a documented exception with an owner. Turnover becomes a check rather than a handover of unfinished business, which is the whole point of running readiness as its own workstream.

Yes. Most engagements start exactly there. It does cost more the later it begins, because the cheapest findings come out of operational design review while drawings can still change, but starting during commissioning still beats starting at turnover.

This review entails a read of the design from the point of view of the people who will operate the building: access, maintainability, spares, isolation, and whether a procedure can actually be performed on the equipment as drawn. It is the earliest and most economically effective place to find the 170 or more issues a site typically carries.

The programs are already running, which is the measurable difference. A site that developed its operating programs after go-live spends its first year building what it should have opened with, and that lost time is the cost Catapult™ removes.

Usually, we would not change the system. A CMMS go-live is not an adoption, and most of what we find is a work-order flow that does not match how the crew actually moves through the building, plus an asset register that was accurate on the day it was exported.

No. We are vendor-neutral by design, because the selection should follow the fit-gap rather than a reseller agreement. That neutrality is most of the value in the selection phase.

A fit-gap analysis is the comparison between how your work actually moves through the building and what a given system does out of the box. The gaps are then a decision: configure, change the process, or rule out the system. Skipping it is how sites end up configuring their way around a system that was never correct.

We design the work-order flow around how the crew moves through the building rather than around the data model. Training and change management follow that, not the other way around.

It is the governance that keeps asset, location and work data consistent as the system is used. Without it a clean go-live degrades on its own within a few quarters, because every site invents its own naming and the portfolio stops being comparable.

596 facilities standardized on the Steadfast operating model for 15 active clients across 250 distinct metros in 40 countries; 128 of those are United States locations across 33 states

That is the point of the operating model. A portfolio that grew by acquisition runs as many operating models as it has sites, and none of them lets you compare two sites or move a team between them. Governance is what makes the footprint worth counting.

We do either. On a full engagement, we carry the site: proactive maintenance, the building systems, on-site staffing, and the vendors who touch it. On a lighter one, we set the operating standard and govern the incumbent against it. What does not work is a standard nobody owns, so one of us has to hold it.

They differ by the number being optimized. An office FM contract is written for cost per square foot. In a data hall, the only number that matters is if the load stays up, and a schedule tuned for the first will quietly trade away the second. We run it the other way around and let cost follow from efficiency rather than from deferral.

Both are normal. We staff sites directly where that is the cleanest answer, and we run client teams to the same operating model where the people are already in place. The model does not change with the badge on the shirt.

They stay until a reason arises for them not to. We put every vendor under the same 24/7 oversight and the same scope of work, which usually surfaces the overlaps and the gaps within the first quarter. Replacing a vendor is an outcome of that, not the opening move.

NFPA, ISO and local code are the floor, with the Steadfast operating model on top of it. Operations governance is what keeps the same standard applied at every site rather than at the ones that happen to have a strong manager.

Usually the end of it would change. Most processes end at restoration: the event is closed, the report is written, and nothing about the site changed. We add the half after restoration, where the corrective action has an owner, a date, and a check that it happened.

In this process, we track the corrective action from a root cause to completion and then feed it back into maintenance strategy, so the interval or the procedure actually changes. A lesson learned that lives in a report is not closed, it is filed.

The owner is a named person with a date, recorded at the time the root cause is agreed rather than assigned afterwards. Unowned actions are the single most common reason that the same failure appears twice on one site.

We always provide the process. Where the engagement includes on-site staffing and vendor oversight, we provide the prescribed response. The two are worth separating: a rehearsed escalation path is worth more at 3 am than an extra body who has never run it.

RCA changes the maintenance strategy through the failure library. Every root cause is recorded against the asset class it came from, so the next interval, procedure, or spares decision is made against the site's own history instead of the manufacturer's default.

You get a prioritized roadmap benchmarked to ISO, NFPA, and SMRP, and a partner through the implementation of it. An assessment that ends at a findings document is an expense rather than a deliverable.

Operational assessment of a single site is typically a matter of weeks from walkdown to roadmap. We scope a portfolio in waves because the point is a prioritized sequence rather than a simultaneous audit of everything you own.

We benchmark assessments against ISO, NFPA, and SMRP, plus the operating model we run across 596 facilities. External standards make the finding defensible; the operating model makes it comparable to sites that have already closed the same gap.

Yes, and that is deliberate. The roadmap is the result rather than the report, and a roadmap handed over at the door tends to be read once. We would rather be measured on what closed.

Yes. A portfolio assessment usually finds that the variation between sites is the finding: the same equipment running to different standards, which is a governance problem rather than a maintenance one.

It helps, and it is not a prerequisite. Much of what an assessment finds is the distance between what the system says and what is on the floor, so arriving without the export is sometimes the more honest starting point. We reconcile the two either way.

Then it is sequenced rather than dropped. The roadmap is prioritized by risk against effort, so a finding you cannot close this year is carried with its consequence written down and an interim control against it. A gap you have decided to live with is a different thing from one you have not found.

We treat continuity as a written scope rather than an assumption. Every project in an operating hall carries a second scope nobody documents, which is keeping the facility up while you work on it. We write that one down, plan the isolations against it, and hold contingency for the parts that are not reversible.

Yes. Full lifecycle means planning, execution, and the improvement pass afterwards, with the trades run against the same operating standard the site runs to. A contractor working to their own method statement inside a live building is the risk the project was supposed to manage.

Infrastructure upgrades, retrofits, and expansions, scoped by risk to the live environment rather than by capital value. A small project on a single-corded load can carry more risk than a large one in an empty hall.

We compare them to the continuity scope first. A change that is trivial on paper can move an isolation into a window the load cannot survive, so the question is always what it does to uptime before what it does to schedule.

We provide one point of contact with real-time tracking and risk registers open to every stakeholder. Transparency is a deliverable here because the people who have to approve an isolation are rarely the people in the project meeting.

We manage delivery and we read the design from the operator's side: access, isolation, maintainability and whether the procedure can actually be performed on the equipment as drawn. That is the operational design review, and it is the cheapest place to catch something that would otherwise be found during the work.

It stops at a state the building can hold, which is planned for before the work starts. Every isolation has a defined position to return to because the risk in a live hall is not the pause, it is pausing somewhere the load cannot survive.

We build the training for you. Generic facilities training does not qualify anyone for a critical environment, and the gap shows up the first time somebody has to make a decision in front of live gear with nobody to ask. Curricula are role-specific and aligned to the compliance regime the site actually sits under.

A CAT is a structured check that somebody can perform a task on the equipment in one's own room, rather than a record that they attended a session about it.

We do both. We build LMS-ready modules, and the walkthroughs and simulations happen on the floor because the parts that matter most are not accessible from a desk.

We measure against the assessment, not the roster. A qualified technician has demonstrated the task on that equipment and the record says so. Attendance tells you the session happened; it says nothing about who can now do the work.

That is the design intent. A role-based curriculum written once is repeatable at every site, which is what lets a team move between locations without being retrained from zero.

Yes, where the vendor is working inside the critical envelope. A qualified in-house team and an unqualified contractor on the same floor is not a qualified site, and the gap tends to surface during the work nobody planned for.

By role and by risk rather than on a single annual cycle. Tasks somebody performs weekly hold; the ones that matter most are usually the ones performed rarely, and those are the ones worth re-assessing. The curriculum says which is which.

We start with the planning function, not with headcount. A team at 70% reactive is not short-staffed, it is deciding the order of work at the moment the work arrives. We put risk-based planning in front of the queue first, because every other improvement compounds off that one.

No. Work management is the flow, and we can standardize the flow inside the system you already own. If the system genuinely cannot carry it, that is an EAM and CMMS optimization conversation, and it is a separate piece of work with its own case to make.

Every asset carries a criticality, and criticality sets the interval and the priority rather than the calendar or the loudest request. The result is that the work you defer is work you chose to defer, with the consequence written down.

The planning function is in place in weeks; the ratio moves over two to three quarters, because it is limited by asset data quality rather than by intent. On one portfolio engagement the sequence cut unplanned downtime by half over the same window.

Real-time work tracking and SLA reporting from the CMMS, closed on evidence rather than on a status field. A work order that is closed without a record of the completed work is a data problem waiting to become a maintenance problem.