Building owners across Australia and New Zealand invest significant funds in lift maintenance contracts, often expecting certainty around cost, performance and risk. Yet, many are unsure whether the service model they’ve chosen genuinely protects the long-term reliability and safety of their vertical transport assets.
Over the past two decades, lift maintenance delivery has evolved. Increased competition, pricing pressure and rising labour and component costs have reshaped how contracts are structured and delivered. In many cases, building owners seek to secure financial operational cost certainty through comprehensive agreements, while contractors respond by managing that risk within increasingly tight margins. The result is not necessarily poor intent but it can lead to reduced transparency, changes in maintenance intensity and uncertainty around what is actually being delivered.
This article explores how lift maintenance contracts have changed, the different models available today, and how risk allocation influences outcomes. By understanding these dynamics, building owners can make more informed decisions about how best to structure maintenance agreements to protect performance, safety and long-term asset value.
How lift maintenance contracts have changed
While the cost of many building services has increased over time, lift maintenance contracts today are often priced more competitively than they were 15–20 years ago. At the same time, labour costs, compliance obligations and component prices have continued to rise. This friction has reshaped how maintenance services are delivered.
In a competitive tender, building owners often seek lower annual contract values. Contractors, operating within tighter margins, must then manage their financial risk, particularly under comprehensive agreements where major components and repairs are included. In response, maintenance models have evolved with common changes including:
- fewer maintenance visits or shorter visits
- greater reliance on remote monitoring and IoT (Internet of Things) systems
- revised contract terms which implement additional exclusions, limiting exposure to high-cost items.
None of these measures are inherently inappropriate. In many cases, technology has improved fault detection and reduced unnecessary call outs. Despite these advances, lifts remain highly mechanical systems and preventative maintenance remains critical to long-term performance.
Reduced preventative activity can lead to accelerated wear, increased downtime and higher remediation costs. In some circumstances, delayed replacement of critical components can escalate into compliance or safety concerns.
Understanding how commercial pressures influence maintenance delivery is essential. Contract structure and pricing strategy can determine how well lift assets are maintained and their risk profile.
The limits of remote monitoring
Advances in lift technology have reduced the need for some traditional maintenance activities. Sealed-for-life bearings, solid-state devices and improved control systems have eliminated certain historical failure points. IoT platforms and remote monitoring systems also now allow contractors to track performance data, detect anomalies and respond to faults more efficiently. These developments can all enhance maintenance programs.
However, vertical transport systems remain highly mechanical. Components such as suspension ropes, door operators, guide systems and braking assemblies are subject to wear that cannot always be detected through sensors alone. Data can indicate performance trends, but it does not replace physical inspection.
We regularly observe situations where component deterioration wasn’t identified through remote monitoring but was evident during on-site inspection. For this reason, building owners should be cautious about maintenance models that rely predominantly on remote monitoring without clearly defined minimum physical attendance requirements.
Any maintenance agreement that incorporates remote monitoring should also specify clear inspection frequencies, task lists and reporting requirements to ensure physical asset condition is appropriately assessed.
Understanding today’s lift maintenance contract options
Different contract models allocate financial risk and decision-making control in different ways. Understanding these differences can help choose an agreement that doesn’t put your asset at risk of being non-compliant or unsafe.
Comprehensive service agreements – the industry standard
For building owners, comprehensive contracts provide cost certainty and simplified budgeting. In effect, they operate as a form of insurance for lift assets.
These agreements typically include:
- routine servicing
- consumable parts
- minor and major repairs
- 24/7 call-out services for faults arising from normal wear and tear.
However, under this model the contractor assumes significant financial risk, particularly where major components such as drives, machines or control systems may require replacement.
Comprehensive agreements can perform well when clearly scoped, appropriately priced and actively monitored. The key is ensuring that preventative maintenance obligations are clearly defined and delivered.
Performance-based service agreements
Performance-based service agreements are similar to comprehensive contracts but include additional key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure service delivery over the life of the agreement.
They are typically used across larger portfolios and include defined performance targets, with penalties applied where contractual terms are not met.
This structure helps maintain accountability and ensures service levels are monitored throughout the contract period.
Adaptive condition-based service agreements
With the rollout of IoT monitoring systems, adaptive or condition-based maintenance agreements are becoming more prevalent. Under these arrangements, service frequency and intervention are driven by remote performance data rather than fixed inspection intervals.
In principle, condition-based maintenance can improve efficiency by focusing effort where it’s needed most. However, these agreements often don’t specify minimum number of visits or detailed preventative task lists.
Without clearly defined physical inspection requirements, maintenance intensity may reduce over time. Given the mechanical nature of lift systems, a purely data-driven model may not identify all deterioration risks.
If adopting a condition-based agreement, building owners should ensure that minimum physical inspections, defined preventative tasks and transparent reporting frameworks are retained within the contract.
Maintenance-only (do-and-charge) service agreements
Maintenance-only agreements separate routine servicing from major repair expenditure. These contracts typically include:
- defined maintenance visit frequencies
- routine inspection and adjustment tasks
- statutory safety testing
- call-outs during standard hours.
Repairs and component replacements are treated as separate, chargeable works.
This model shifts major financial risk away from the contractor and places greater decision making control with the building owner. When structured carefully, it can reduce the incentive to defer large replacement works. Contractors identify issues, provide scope and pricing, and the owner determines when works proceed.
In some cases, a hybrid approach is adopted, retaining a base maintenance agreement for routine servicing and minor components while excluding high-value capital items such as drives, machines or suspension systems. Under this structure, major replacements are transparently identified and approved by the owner.
This approach can provide clarity around what’s covered, reduce behavioural conflicts linked to risk transfer and allow owners to make informed capital planning decisions. It does, however, require active asset management and oversight.
The questions to ask before you sign
Lift machine rooms and wells are typically restricted access environments. Unlike many other building systems, owners and facilities managers cannot easily observe maintenance activities or component condition firsthand. Visibility depends on documentation, reporting and independent verification.
Before finalising any maintenance agreement, building owners should ensure they understand what’s included as well as how performance will be measured and demonstrated.
Key questions to consider:
- How often are technicians scheduled to attend site and for how long?
- What specific preventative maintenance tasks will be performed at each visit?
- How are major components assessed and reported on?
- How is lift uptime measured and communicated?
- What exclusions apply and how are capital replacements identified and managed?
- What happens if service levels aren’t achieved?
Some owners choose to seek independent technical advice when establishing scopes, reviewing tenders or auditing performance. Whether undertaken internally or externally, an independent review process can significantly improve transparency and accountability.
It is also critical to actively manage the requirements of the agreement throughout its term. Without ongoing oversight and performance monitoring, service levels may gradually deteriorate over time.
Protecting performance and longevity
Lift maintenance contracts have evolved in response to commercial pressure, technological advancement and changing risk appetites. When priced appropriately and clearly defined, all major contract models can perform effectively.
Over time, reduced preventative maintenance can impact reliability, compliance and asset lifespan. In many situations, delayed intervention can escalate into safety concerns or operational disruption.
By understanding how contract structures influence maintenance, recognising the limits of remote monitoring and ensuring appropriate visibility of activities, building owners can take a more informed and proactive approach.
