Annex 1

MANAGEMENT AUDIT

Report on

REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE

PROPERTY GROUP – BUILDING SURVEYING

CONTENTS Page 1. Methodology of Carrying Out Audit 1 2. Scope of Management Audit 2 3. What are we doing? 4 4. How do we do it? 6

4.1 Organisational Structure 6 4.2 Programmed R&M Works 8 4.3 Non-Programmed (Reactive) R&M Works 8 4.4 Pre Tender Procedure 8 4.5 Tendering Procedure 9 4.6 Post Tender Procedure 9 4.7 Pooled Resources Operational Plan (PROP) 9

5. Why are we doing it? 12 6. Who are we doing it for? 13 7. Is this the best way of doing it? 14

7.1 Consultation 14 7.2 Customer Satisfaction 14 7.3 Benchmarking Activities/Comparison 17

8. Emerging Issues 21 9. Recommendations 23 10. Implementation Plan 26

1

1. METHODOLOGY OF CARRYING OUT AUDIT The audit was undertaken by the Chief Building Surveyor with the assistance of the Performance Team. The audit was based around the questions – What are we doing? Why are we doing it? Do we need to do it? What are the consequences of not doing it? And, if we have to do it, is this the best way to do it? The steps involved in carrying out the management audit included: • Identification of the scope of audit, • Critically assessment of the need for the service, • Identification of all stakeholders, • Detailing current processes and procedures, • Consultation with stakeholders on current/future processes, procedures and products, • Benchmarking activities against other organisations, • Identification of improvements and desired outcomes, • Implementation of improvements, and • Monitoring of the outcomes.

2

2. SCOPE OF MANAGEMENT AUDIT REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE

Definition The Audit is of the physical process of managing the repair and maintenance activities of the Property Group. These activities include planned maintenance, reactive maintenance and emergency repairs including reinstatement of fire and storm damage. Repair and maintenance can be studied within three discrete functions - planned, reactive and service contracts. The Audit will focus on the planned and reactive repair and maintenance. Planned Repair & Maintenance Planned or cyclical maintenance addresses schemes, generally of a larger nature, where information is analysed from condition surveys which are prepared by the Property Group and updated as agreed with clients. The programmes of work are established on a priority of need basis and agreed with clients within available budgets. These can be independent contracts e.g. re-roofing, replacing windows or, where appropriate, can be undertaken in conjunction with other major works to achieve economies of scale, joint timescales and to avoid the problems associated with having more than one contractor on site at any one time. The process involves brief development, setting up projects, on-site measurement, preparation of drawings and specifications, tendering, supervision on site, monitoring and reporting progress, implementation of contract conditions, checking and processing accounts through to agreement of final accounts. Reactive Repair & Maintenance Reactive maintenance is the immediate response to building damage or breakdown to ensure buildings remain operational on a day-to-day basis. This involves receipt of request, assessment of work required, preparation of specifications (and drawings if necessary), the selection of contractors, placing of orders, site supervision and processing of accounts.

3

Exclusions from the Audit The identification and collation of maintenance requirements and programme formulation is an element of the Asset Management Planning (AMP) process and this will be considered in the AMP Audit scheduled for Year 3 (2006/07). There is a robust system for managing engineering “service” contracts for such items as boilers, lifts, fire and intruder alarms which involves cyclical competitive tendering for maintenance of the various elements. This process has been thoroughly reviewed and provides a most cost effective system. “Service” contracts are therefore not being considered within this Audit. The policy for the management of asbestos was reviewed in May 2004 and is therefore excluded from the Repair and Maintenance Audit. “Asbestos” is due to be audited in Year 5 (2008/09). Key Issues for Review • Processes – How does the Property Group undertake reactive and planned

maintenance tasks? • 24 hour emergency call out systems. • Contractor Performance Management. • Current Area Office structures and location for effective service delivery. • Consideration of Best Practices identified within other Authorities. • Possible grouping of planned projects according to volume and type. • Strategic partnering.

4

3. WHAT ARE WE DOING? The Director of Property is the County Council’s designated Corporate Property Officer and as such is responsible for the provision of technical advice on all aspects of property matters. In respect of the repair and maintenance function this involves the recommendation of corporate policy applicable to the County Council’s property, the preparation of budget recommendations and the prioritisation and implementation of repair and maintenance activities relative to approved resources. Following the allocation of resources to primary corporate property requirements the balance of resources is allocated, by the Director of Property, to Service Directorates for discretionary expenditure relative to service priorities. The repair and maintenance service is provided to internal (including corporate activity for the Director of Property) and external clients by means of service level agreements, individual memoranda of agreement or by pooled resources or co-operative agreements. In the context of Property Group’s budgets and workloads, schools with their own identified and controlled budgets are considered to be external clients. In terms of turnover the spend is proportioned approximately 36% LCC retained and 64% external client. £ 2004/05 LCC Retained R&M 7,424,000 2004/05 External - Fire, Magistrates, etc 1,333,724 2004/05 R&M delegated to schools 90% of £16.882m 15,194,520 2004/05 Devolved Formula Capital work allocated by code 3,868,000 20,396,244 The Property Group is in discussion with its internal clients (Directorates) concerning the allocated discretionary budget provision as to the scope and level of service available and required. Individual agreements are prepared with other clients, typically colleges, Lancashire Magistrates Courts Committee, Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, High Schools and some Primary Schools. The Building Surveying Practice has a pooled resources, co-operative scheme, membership of which is available for all primary, special and nursery schools. This scheme, the Pooled Resources Operational Plan (PROP), which is detailed on page 9 currently attracts membership of over 90% of eligible schools (496 out of a potential 537 schools), in the face of competition from external consultancies. The internal Repair and Maintenance budget is split into two distinct areas of work. These are reactive repairs and larger programmed maintenance work. The LCC retained budgets encompass approximately 15,000 individual reactive repair orders per annum (excluding service contracts), totalling over £2M in value and over 650 planned maintenance contracts with a total value of approximately £8.5M. In addition 7,740 orders for service contracts are processed annually.

5

The work is recorded on PAMIS (Property Asset Management Information System) and classified under 13 major headings as shown on the table below. The elemental groupings have been established within PAMIS to maintain consistency with the elements recognised by the Department for Education and Skills and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as the basis for national information gathering within the Condition Survey process of Asset Management Planning. The breakdown by number of jobs and cost of each element for 2004/05 was as follows:

Planned Retained reactive

Element No of jobs Cost (£) No of

jobs Cost (£)

External Walls and Doors 69 472,121 2,522 511,470

Roofs 38 856,941 611 191,204Internal Walls and Doors 45 592,778 1,145 224,297

Floors and Stairs 45 140,887 353 156,272Ceilings 10 88,054 101 36,402Redecoration 60 143,135 134 119,134Sanitary Services 15 80,935 902 89,351Fixed Furniture and Fittings 18 62,574 845 179,437

Mechanical Services 60 864,807 2,722 612,956Electrical Services 54 216,951 4,067 646,498Externals/Grounds 51 217,325 1,067 343,799Playing Fields 2 8,618 2 291Service Contracts/Testing 8 1,873 5,291 565,890

Total 478 3,746,999 19,762 3,677,001 These are the figures for the retained budget based on Committed Expenditure. The figures exclude Fire, Magistrates, Schools devolved and Lancashire County Engineering Services. The largest number of “reactive” actions is within the Electrical Services category, whilst the greatest value falls within Mechanical Services. The greatest concentration “programmed” work is within the range £0 - £50,000.

6

4. HOW DO WE DO IT? 4.1 Organisational Structure The Building Surveying Practice is structured into three Area Offices: • North Area based at the Teanlowe Centre, Poulton-le-Flyde, covering Lancaster,

Wyre, Fylde and part of Preston (north of Blackpool Road). • South Area based at County Hall, Preston, covering part of Preston (south of

Blackpool Road) South Ribble, Chorley and West Lancs. • East Area based at the Globe, Accrington, covering Accrington, Hyndburn, Ribble

Valley, Burnley and Pendle. The North Area Office, located in the Teanlowe Centre, Poulton-le-Fylde is no longer in the best position, following Blackpool’s secession from Lancashire County Council. Its main workloads are in Lancaster, Fleetwood and North Preston (ie north of Blackpool Road). The town nearest the geographical centre of the area is Garstang but this town is not well placed for motorway connections. The Estates Unit of Property Group are actively seeking suitable alternative offices to the north of Preston. The South Area Office moved from Clayton Green to fill vacant space within County Hall. This has not worked well as the number of staff has outgrown the space available and the access restrictions to and from County Hall and the difficult parking situation impose great restraints on the mobility of the technical staff who spend a high proportion of their time visiting premises and building sites. The Estates Unit have identified new locations and these are being actively pursued. The East Area Office was relocated to The Globe, Accrington following the creation of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council and as such is ideally suited to service the geographical area it covers.

7

Area Office Structure The area offices are managed by the Chief Building Surveyor and are part of the Building Design Unit. Building Design Manager Chief Building Surveyor North

(18 Permanent staff) (4 Temporary staff)

(8 Admin staff)

South (18 Permanent staff)(7 Temporary staff)

(8 Admin staff)

East (19 Permanent staff) (3 Temporary staff)

(8 Admin staff)

Building Surveying Area Manager (1)

Building Surveying Area Manager (1)

Building Surveying Area Manager (1)

Principal Building Surveyor (1)

Principal Building Surveyor (1)

Principal Building Surveyor (1)

Senior Building Surveyor (1)

Senior Building Surveyor (1)

Senior Building Surveyor (1)

Building Surveyors (13) Building Surveyors (13) Building Surveyors (14)

Building Services Engineers (2)

Building Services Engineers (2)

Building Services Engineers (2)

Temporary Building Surveyors (4)

Temporary Building Surveyors (7)

Temporary Building Surveyors (3)

A Senior Admin Assistant, 2 Admin Assistants and 5 Technical Assistants are located at each Area Office and support the professional teams.

8

4.2 Programmed Repair & Maintenance Works Allocations by Division of Service are received from the Principal Accountant within Resources Directorate and the Chief Building Surveyor is requested by the Service to prepare a programme of works.

Proposals are formulated by a designated Principal or Senior Surveyor in each of the area offices. Various avenues are followed in preparing and evaluating these proposals including • Consulting the condition surveys • Consulting valid reports and additional surveys • Consulting correspondence on individual property files • Checking recent work histories • By physical inspection of the relevant buildings The three areas forward their provisional lists to the Chief Building Surveyor for consideration, consultation with the client is undertaken and programme agreed. The Chief Building Surveyor then distributes the approved programme to the appropriate teams. 4.3 Non-Programmed (Reactive) Repair & Maintenance Works Day-to-day work requests are received at the area offices by telephone, by e-mail or by post and by the direct action of the territorial surveyor and engineer. The technical assistants who operate the BECON aspect of the PAMIS system gather the necessary information which they input. An order to the contractor, selected by client request, availability or rotation, is generated along with a copy to the territorial surveyor. A memorandum is sent to the client confirming Property Group’s actions. The projects are allocated to individual surveyors or engineer, subject to workload, for action in accordance with Property Group procedures and financial requirements. The work item is monitored by the territorial surveyors who approve the accounts. Technical assistants have authority to pass low value accounts. All accounts are processed by technical assistants and transmitted to Payments Unit. 4.4 Pre-Tender Procedure for Repair & Maintenance Works The area managers arrange for the projects to be input on the PAMIS system, which then generates an order/reference number.

9

The surveyor or Engineer assigned to the project visits site to assess and ascertain the extent of the work and agrees dates with the client or head of premises. Pre-contract surveys are completed and any appropriate specialist advice incorporated. Drawings, specifications and health and safety documentation are prepared. Planning approval and building regulation consents are sought as appropriate. 4.5 Tendering Procedure for Repair & Maintenance Works Contractors are selected from Lancashire County Council’s lists of approved contractors. The necessary tender documentation is sent to the selected contractors and the head of establishment is notified in writing that tenders have been invited for work at the premises. When tenders are received, the most favourable one is arithmetically and technically checked and if in order is then approved by the appropriate manager. If the tender is not satisfactory the contractor is given an opportunity to review, if appropriate. If the lowest tender continues to be unsatisfactory the next lowest tender is checked and processed for approval. Letters of acceptance of tender are generated to the successful contractor, client and surveyor or engineer. The unsuccessful contractors are notified and provided with lists of tender figures in ascending order and lists of tenderers in alphabetical order so that it is not possible to link the two lists. 4.6 Post Tender Procedure for Repair & Maintenance Works When applicable to qualifying projects, the procedures required by the Construction, Design and Management Regulations are adhered to. Pre-site meetings are held, chaired by the surveyor, including the client and the contractor, to agree working procedures and applicable dates. Work is commenced on site. The surveyor supervises the project, issues any necessary contract instructions, minutes site meetings, prepares valuations and issues the required certificates. On satisfactory completion of the contract, the surveyor issues the certificate of practical completion and accepts the health and safety file for retention on site by the client. On completion of the defects liability period the surveyor ensures all outstanding defects are made good before issuing the financial certificate. 4.7 The Pooled Resources Operational Plan This schools co-operative repair and maintenance arrangement was initiated and is managed by the Property Group. The Pooled Resources Operational Plan (PROP) is a non-profit making scheme for Lancashire LEA schools which was introduced in April 1998 following Lancashire LEA’s

10

commitment to maximise devolution of funds to schools. Fair funding requires that all revenue spending for repairs and maintenance must be delegated to schools. Revenue allocations to primary and special schools were historically split into two elements – the initial LMS allocation (from c1990) which covered such items as replacing broken windows, repairing internal doors and partitions, replacing floor coverings and redecoration and the Fair Funding allocation (from 1998) which extended the schools responsibilities to include the repair and maintenance of all elements of their buildings up to £10,000 project value. From April 2002 the same threshold applied to voluntary aided primary schools. The Director of Education and Cultural Services retains funds which are expended on non-voluntary aided schools, under the auspices of the Director of Property, on repair and maintenance projects costing in excess of £10,000. This retained allocation is defined as Capitalised Revenue. Many schools have questioned the artificiality of the rules restricting the ways in which LMS and Fair Funding may be expended. Education have decided that both funds are intended for buildings and maintenance and can be taken in totality. However it is accepted by Property Group that some schools have become used to spending LMS funds in other ways. Accordingly, following consultations with a number of schools and their representatives, it has been agreed to limit school contributions to 75% of their LMS allocation whilst PROP will still take on the whole of their LMS responsibilities. It is recognised that with maintenance and repairs (unlike most other forms of revenue expenditure) there are often large peaks of unforeseen and urgent expenditure, within a short period of time for individual schools, which far exceed the delegated funds. PROP was conceived as a support or ‘safety net’ for schools in the form of a co-operative or insurance cover, to provide reassurance that money would be available to keep school buildings safe and operational in the event of a costly breakage or failure of part of the building. For PROP to continue to work effectively, a sufficient number of schools need to contribute to it to allow the peaks and troughs of expenditure to spread across many schools over a minimum period of three years. Many schools have indicated that they would like to continue to collaborate on the collective maintenance of buildings for the benefit of all member schools. A further three-year PROP contract, commencing in April 2005, is therefore being offered to all schools, which will cover all the delegated responsibilities for repair and maintenance. All works are managed using the Property Group’s PAMIS system. PROP Funds may be utilised as part of a larger multi-funded projects or on such schemes as may be identified in the Asset Management Plan. Lancashire Secondary schools are not eligible to join this scheme.

11

Ten Point Summary This is intended to highlight the salient points of the Pooled Resources Operational Plan 1) PROP is a collective non-profit making insurance scheme in the ownership of the

member schools, and is managed on behalf of the members by the Chief Building Surveyor through the Area Office Managers.

2) Schools return their Fair Funding Allocation together with 75% of their LMS allocation and then have peace of mind knowing that their maintenance requirements, foreseen or unforeseen, will be managed.

3) PROP can cover all of the school’s revenue repair and maintenance and associated health and safety responsibilities.

4) An individual school’s contribution to PROP is split into a sum set aside for that school’s planned programme of pro-active repairs and maintenance (60%) and an allocation to the co-operative pot (40%) which covers all schools’ reactive maintenance needs.

5) Reactive maintenance includes any day-to-day repairs, service contracts, repairs following service visits and all emergency situations.

6) Any funds, which remain surplus within the reactive maintenance pot, will be recycled proportionally into planned maintenance.

7) As PROP is a risk spreading co-operative scheme it can only operate if there is a sufficient number and mix of subscribers to make it viable.

8) Soft play and landscaped areas are not covered by the scheme. 9) Secondary schools are not eligible to join PROP. 10) Schools are invited to apply for membership of PROP for three-year periods. Some Schools have expressed concern about the amount of money spent on repair and maintenance at their premises since joining the PROP scheme. At the moment summary information is produced at premises level. The Director of Property would like to make the scheme more transparent and is proposing to send a detailed financial breakdown of all jobs carried out at the Schools to the relevant Headteacher. This will show expenditure against contribution on a year by year basis and should demonstrate the long-term benefits of belonging to the Scheme.

12

5. WHY ARE WE DOING IT? Buildings are repaired and maintained to ensure that they are fit for purpose and are able to assist the premises users in providing their designated services to the people of Lancashire. The properties are maintained on a reactive and proactive (or planned) basis. Reactive maintenance ensures that day to day building defects are repaired to enable the buildings to operate effectively. It is imperative that health and safety liabilities are addressed as soon as they are apparent, correcting trip hazards being a noticeable concern. Similarly, failures to comply with current legislation must be targeted as priorities. Keeping buildings wind and watertight, i.e. weatherproof would always take priority over defects which have a lesser effect or are simply aesthetic, e.g. damage to internal decorations. It is sometimes necessary to effect patch repairs pending a more strategic approach to the whole problem or defect. Proactive maintenance is programmed, within available budgets, to minimise the consequences of failing to address the identified needs of the building fabric which has a pronounced knock-on effect on the increased demands for the day to day maintenance. In very simple terms if buildings are not maintained they will ultimately fall down.

13

6 WHO DO WE DO IT FOR? The Building Surveying Practice actively seeks to offer its services, particularly in the field of repair and maintenance, in which it has a special expertise, to clients both under the County umbrella and external. Establishments for which the repair and maintenance responsibility is retained by the County Council are: All Education and Cultural Services buildings including responsibility for schools above the “de minimis” levels of £10,000 for primary, nursery and special schools and £15,000 for secondary schools, libraries and museums. All Social Services retained properties but excluding homes for older people and allied day centres which are managed by Lancashire County Care Services. The Environment Directorate and all its services such as Registrars and County Analyst and the Resources Directorate including County Administration Buildings Written Agreements are maintained with external clients including primary, secondary, special and nursery schools that have delegated funds, Colleges, Magistrates Courts, Fire and Rescue Service and Lancaster City Council. The Property Group has links with primary care trusts and has worked for schools in Cumbria.

14

7. IS THIS THE BEST WAY TO DO IT? In order to ascertain the stakeholders’ views of the service we have undertaken consultation and carried out customer satisfaction surveys. We have also used this feedback for benchmarking purposes and have compared our processes with other local authorities. 7.1 Consultation An important part of the Management Audit process has been to consult out clients with a view to identifying the issues facing the Property Group and any shortcomings of the services provided. Regular meeting are held with colleagues from Education and Cultural Services covering schools, Adult Education, Youth and Community, Outdoor Education, Libraries and Museums. Similar meetings are held with Social Services. Consultation has identified that the areas of concern are feedback of information, date compliance and cost information. The contact has improved working relationships and delivery together with an improved understanding of priorities and pressures of others. In addition to the above, standard questionnaires have been produced in collaboration with COPROP, a national body composed of Chief Officers in Property. These are sent to clients, at establishment level, to explore the relative success or failure of services provided by Property Group and by contractors employed on projects. Every response is considered and, where any score is lower than 5 out of 10, a senior manager investigates the reason and institutes any necessary corrective action. A recurring theme relates to the selected contractors’ failure to deliver in terms of time and quality. As a result of this Property Group are actively considering alternative ways of procuring the works and delivering the required service. 7.2 Customer Satisfaction Regular liaison meetings are held with Education and Cultural Services, Museums and Social Services. Service Level Agreements and Strategic Liaison meetings are held at the Director of Property level with Education and Cultural Services and Social Services. Twice yearly customer satisfaction surveys are conducted locally by the Area Offices and the Performance Team. The results are benchmarked nationally under the auspices of COPROP (Chief Officers in Property). Where lower scores are received further investigation is instigated by the Chief Building Surveyor or the Area Managers.

15

The Spring survey of the COPROP Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking for building maintenance was circulated to a representative sample of customers. The surveys look at end user satisfaction with professional services and contractor performance. The questions cover: • Promptness/working to timescales • Accurately meeting customers’ needs/Standard of work appears good. • Professionalism/competence • Helpfulness/politeness • Value for money • Overall satisfaction • “Did we solve the problem?” The survey returns are detailed overleaf. As stated earlier scores below 5 are investigated. As an example the majority of scores relating to the laboratory refurbishment at Morecambe High School (number 19 on the table overleaf) fall into this category. The Headteacher was contacted and asked if he wished this matter to be treated as a formal complaint. He did not want to pursue this as a complaint but he raised a couple of problems and asked to be accompanied on a tour of the works in order to pick up all snags. All problems were rectified to his satisfaction and the Property Group has subsequently been commissioned to upgrade further laboratories at the School.

COPROP CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY – BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES – MAY 2004

16

Professional Services Contractor Performance

Prom

pt/ to Tim

escales

Accurately

met needs

Professional

& C

ompetent

Helpful &

P

olite

Overall

quality

Prom

pt/ to Tim

escales

Standard of

work

Professional

& C

ompetent

Helpful &

P

olite

Overall

quality

Effective in

solving the problem

1 Leck St Peter’s C of E Primary 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 Thornton Library 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 - 3 Lancaster Slyne Rd R&R 6 7 9 8 8 6 8 9 9 8 - 4 Lancaster Judges Lodgings 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 9 5 St Bedes Catholic High 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 Cleveleys Library 6 5 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 7 Kirkham Staff Training Centre 8 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 M’cambe The Harvesters 8 8 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 9 Queens Drive Primary 3 9 8 5 5 3 10 10 10 10 8 10 Morecambe Library 9 7 10 10 10 7 9 9 10 10 7 11 Preesall F’wood Charity C of E 9 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 8 9 12 L’ster The Cathedral Catholic 7 7 7 9 8 8 9 9 10 9 10 13 L’ster Elm House Day Centre 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 14 Carnforth Library - 5 5 6 5 7 5 6 6 5 5 15 L’ster Skerton Family Centre 7 7 6 6 7 6 8 6 7 7 - 16 Garstang Library 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 17 L’ster Beaumont College 8 7 8 8 7 3 7 6 8 5 6 18 F’wood St Marys Catholic 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 19 Morecambe High School 4 4 2 2 4 5 3 3 2 3 3 20 Stalmine Primary 5 5 5 8 5 3 8 9 9 7 7 21 Heysham Trumacar Primary 8 7 8 10 8 8 7 8 10 8 8 22 Out Rawcliffe C of E Primary 8 9 9 10 9 2 7 8 9 6 9 23 Broughton High School 9 10 9 10 9 8 8 9 10 9 10 Average Score 7.7 7.9 8.0 8.3 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.2 8.6 7.7 7.9

17

7.3 Benchmarking Activities/Comparison with other Authorities The Property Group is part of the National Best Value Benchmarking Scheme and meets regularly with the 16 other North West Authorities who comprise the North West Benchmarking Group for maintenance. The Property Group regularly contribute data including listing work elements undertaken, methods of procurement, numbers of technical and administration staff in proportion of value of workload and mechanisms for measuring customer satisfaction. It has to be recognised that Cheshire County Council is the only other member authority in the North West which can be said to truly compare with Lancashire. In order to achieve a national comparitor, the Chief Building Surveyor is a member of the Chief Building Surveyors Society which includes some 60 other shire and metropolitan authorities, and regularly attends society meetings and conferences, and contributes information to appropriate ad-hoc surveys to gain knowledge of good practice and keep abreast of recent developments of interest in our sphere of operations. A current survey of specific interest relates to the management of requests for reactive repairs. Authorities were asked to report on the various ways in which they handled such requests. There were three options identified:

1. Direct orders from the premises manager to contractors 2. In house Helpdesk which the premises manager contacts to initiate

repairs. (Out of hours rota of building surveyors) 3. External helpdesk provided by consultant partner or contractor

Sixteen authorities responded of whom 81% had operated broadly as option 2 31% could be classified as option 3. None of the authorities had devolved full authority to the premises managers. Two authorities have now outsourced responsibility for all property services to external consultants. Lancashire operate Option 2 as BECON but do not have a formal out of hours arrangement, relying on the goodwill of the surveyors for such response. The results of the Spring COPROP survey have been compared with eight other authorities and the results are set out in the table below.

COPROP CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY – BENCHMARKING DATA – MAY 2004

18

. Professional Services Contractor Performance

Prom

pt/ to Tim

escales

Accurately

met needs

Professional

& C

ompetent

Helpful &

P

olite

Overall

quality

Prom

pt/ to Tim

escales

Standard of

work

Professional

& C

ompetent

Helpful &

P

olite

Overall

quality

Wrexham 92% 92% 94% 95% 93% Wrexham 89% 92% 93% 94% 92% Worcestershire 83% 85% 87% 89% 87% Luton 71% 82% 84% 89% 81% Luton 76% 89% 92% 92% 85% Isle of Wight 72% 80% 84% 87% 80% Isle of Wight 80% 83% 91% 94% 85% Lincolnshire 77% 80% 83% 85% 79% Lancashire 77% 79% 80% 83% 80% Devon 76% 80% 81% 85% 79% Lincolnshire 78% 82% 85% 87% 80% Anonymous 76% 78% 79% 85% 78% East Sussex 75% 82% 85% 90% 80% Lancashire 70% 80% 82% 86% 77% Anonymous 84% 78% 89% 93% 79% Worcestershire 64% 76% 77% 81% 73% Devon 75% 79% 80% 84% 76% East Sussex 68% 78% 77% 80% 70% Average 80% 83% 87% 90% 83% Average 74% 81% 82% 86% 79%

Only six of the benchmarked authorities provided a return in respect of ‘Effective in solving the problem’ the results were as follows (Lancashire’s result is in bold and underlined): 83% 83% 80% 79% 78% 77% Lancashire County Property Group as part of the North West Benchmarking Group are currently considering levels of maintenance provision, staffing numbers and costs per order. This is now moving to include methods of provision. Winter Survey The Winter survey of the COPROP Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking for building maintenance was circulated to customers and the returns are detailed overleaf.

COPROP CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY – BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES – NOVEMBER 2004

19

Professional Services Contractor Performance

Prom

pt/ to Tim

escales

Accurately

met needs

Professional

& C

ompetent

Helpful &

P

olite

Overall

quality

Prom

pt/ to Tim

escales

Standard of

work

Professional

& C

ompetent

Helpful &

P

olite

Overall

quality

Effective in

solving the problem

1 Stacksteads St Josephs 7 7 8 8 7 4 2 5 5 4 7 2 Bacup St Josephs RC 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 3 3 3 8 3 Barrow Primary 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 4 Rawtenstall Resources Centre 5 3 5 3 5 5 3 3 4 5 5 5 Barrowford Library 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 6 6 9 6 Rawtenstall Balladen Primary 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 Nelson Soc Servs Offices 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 7 6 5 N/R 8 Oswaldtwistle Moor End PS 9 9 9 9 N/R 9 8 9 9 N/R 8 9 Rishton Library N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 2 2 2 2 1 1 10 Sabden St Marys RC 9 9 9 10 9 8 9 8 8 8 N/R 11 Haslingden Primary 8 7 8 9 10 8 4 8 5 3 6 12 Clitheroe St Michael & St John 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 N/R 13 C-L-M Mount Pleasant 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 14 Burnley The Haven 9 9 8 8 8 9 8 8 9 9 9 15 Padiham Spring Bank Day C 7 7 9 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 16 Rawtenstall Cloughfold Primary 3 6 9 10 7 3 6 8 9 6 7 17 Nelson St Pauls CE 5 6 5 7 5 5 5 4 5 4 N/R 18 Colne Primet Primary 1 10 10 10 8 5 10 10 10 10 10 19 Burnley Queen Street Mill 6 6 7 7 6 6 4 7 5 5 5 20 Colne Christ Church CE N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 9 9 8 8 N/R 21 Burnley St Peters CE 10 10 10 10 10 2 6 7 8 7 10 22 Burnley Pike Hill Library N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 7 10 10 10 10 N/R 23 Clitheroe Branch Library 6 8 8 N/R 8 8 9 9 10 9 9 24 Colne Gibfield 8 8 9 9 9 1 5 2 2 2 5 25 Brierfield Walter St Primary N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 10 10 10 10 10 10 Average Score 7.4 8 8.4 8.6 8.1 6.8 7 7 7.2 6.7 7.6

20

The benchmarking information relative to the November 2004 figure is still awaited from COPROP. The survey results indicate changes in user satisfaction with both the professional services and contractor performance. Professional Services • Promptness/working to timescales

decrease from 7.7 to 7.4 • Accurately meeting customers’ needs

increase from 7.9 to 8.0 • Professionalism/competence

increase from 8.0 to 8.4 • Helpfulness/politeness

increase from 8.3 to 8.6 • Overall satisfaction

increase from 8.0 to 8.1 Contractor Performance • Promptness/working to timescales

decrease from 7.0 to 6.8 • Standard of work appears good

decrease from 8.0 to 7.0 • Professionalism/competence

decrease from 8.2 to 7.0 • Helpfulness/politeness

decrease from 8.6 to 7.2 • Overall satisfaction

decrease from 7.7 to 6.7 Overall • “Did we solve the problem?”

decrease from 7.9 to 7.6 Whilst it is pleasing to note that in 4 of the 5 categories relating to professional services the scores have increased, it is of concern that the scores for contractor performance and the overall scores have decreased. The Chief Building Surveyor and his Area Managers are investigating the reasons for this and they will report their findings to the Director of Property together with recommendations for any action that is necessary.

21

8. EMERGING ISSUES A desire to investigate areas for change and improvement has been prompted by a combination of issues including:

changes in Education funding client perceptions and needs improved systems greater workload increased legislative requirements greater competition shorter timescales a greater awareness of spending power, and a need to move forward.

Areas of consideration: • The Authority spends large sums on similar types of goods and services.

Co-ordination has previously been poor in maximising spending power to improve service delivery in terms of time, quality and cost.

• As greater input is required from designers and facilitators in terms of Health

and Safety, Planning, Building Regulations, Quality Assurance, monitoring and reporting, staff involved in the processes have less time available for the core functions.

• The opportunity exists to review procurement, in certain areas of Repair and

Maintenance, to group certain types of work together in block tenders and contracts and to also form partnering arrangements.

• The review of work procurement has shown that common methods exist

nationally consisting of day work orders, tendered hourly rates and material on-cost, individually tendered projects, group tendered projects, schedules of rates and partnering arrangements with contractors. All these methods need to be evaluated before any firm conclusion as to the preferred option can be drawn. A combination of options may well prove to provide the required operational and organisational improvements.

• Analysis of work types has identified planned types of work of mechanical

engineering services, roofs, internal and external walls and doors, as items of significant value that potentially could yield benefits if consolidated into group contracts.

• Reactive work order numbers identify electrical; mechanical engineering

services, external and internal walls to be of a high volume.

22

• The existing norm of procurement of large amounts of reactive works using Lancashire County Council daywork schedule does not meet the needs of the Authority or external clients. Whilst the schedule has been in use for over 30 years and approved during countless audits, it is not necessarily the most appropriate vehicle for procurement of reactive repairs.

• A review of the way in which the Building Surveying Practice is structured to

best manage and deliver these changing demands is required. • The present 24 Hour Emergency Call-out System relies on the goodwill of all

technical members of the Building Surveying Practice being prepared to respond to calls from emergency services, clients and colleagues as the need arises.

• The location of the three area offices has been studied to investigate whether

they are in the appropriate position to suit present and foreseeable business needs.

23

9. RECOMMENDATIONS The emerging issues cover five themes – Standardisation of Specification, Procurement, Structure, Systems and Area Office Location. Recommendations are made with a view to achieving an improvement to all these areas of business. STANDARDISATION OF SPECIFICATION At present there is little standard approach in the drafting of work specifications. Each Surveyor, group or office has their own standard specification and there is no sharing of current practice. In addition to inconsistency of approach the formulation and checking of a specification is time intensive. As each specification is drawn up individually there is no commonality in the specification of materials. Commonality of materials could improve maintenance requirements in addition to the potential cost savings in bulk item procurement. It is recommended that there should be a standardised approach to specification. PROCUREMENT The main issues raised as a result of this review focus on the need to revise the methods of procurement for repair and maintenance projects. To this end a more detailed appraisal of the options available, including consulting those authorities who have adopted other procedures, is to be undertaken. Use and development of contractors that have a product or service of a “specialist” nature which could give improvements in delivery, quality, cost and ongoing maintenance responsibilities will be examined. Scheduled and agreed rates for certain specific types of work can pre inform cost and delivery information in addition to potential cost savings. This will also be investigated. Partnering may be defined as a management approach used by two or more organisations to achieve specific business objectives by maximising the effectiveness of each participant’s resources. It requires that parties work together in an open and trusting relationship based on mutual objectives, an agreed method of problem resolution and an active search for continuous measurable improvements.

24

Essentially, partnering promotes improved performance through collaborative business relationships based on best value rather than lowest cost. Term contract awards are still made on the basis of rigorous competition judged on pre-determined combinations of quality and cost. An appraisal of the options available for the procurement of repair and maintenance works, including partnering, will be carried out. STRUCTURE It is apparent that the growth of workload is impacting on the management teams and is affecting their ability to monitor and control the various programmes and individual projects to the satisfaction of our clients. The structure of the Building Surveying Practice has, therefore, been reviewed and staffing levels should be flexible to changing work levels. The current structure of the Building Surveying Practice was established at Local Government Reorganisation in 1998. However, since that date the workload and the external income have increased. Large numbers of ‘agency’ and short term contract staff have assisted with the enormous increase. The Director of Property is, therefore, proposing to expand the current structure by 3 additional permanent members of staff at each Area Office together with the establishment of an assistant for the Chief Building Surveyor. The Resources Board have agreed with the business case for this expansion and have agreed to commence the necessary consultation to implement the proposal. The proposal will regularise the current situation and provide a stable workforce capable of delivering Property Group client expectations. Following the implementation of the restructure, a formal rota will be established at each Area Office which will guarantee that members of staff will be on standby to respond to emergencies. SYSTEMS Certain aspects of the way in which the Repair and Maintenance service is currently delivered have to be reassessed such as: • the processes for the identification of the work programme, and • the briefing process, including gaining client agreement to schemes. These issues will be addressed by the development of a Repair and Maintenance Strategy.

25

AREA OFFICE LOCATION It has been recognised that the South Area Office, based in County Hall, Preston, should be relocated. Suitable premises have been identified in the Civic Centre, Leyland and the terms for leasing this accommodation have been negotiated. The lease of the Teanlowe Centre, Poulton-le-Fylde, where the North Area Office is based, is currently being held over. The Centre has new owners and the Property Group will be approached regarding the renewal of the lease in the near future. This is, therefore, an opportunity to consideration the geographical location of the Area Office.

26

10. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Action Lead Manager Timescale Standardisation of Specification Design a standard specification which is to be used by all the Building Surveying practice.

Mark Warburton December 2005

Procurement Carry out an options appraisal of alternative methods of service delivery including: • day work orders • tendered hourly rates and material

on-cost • individually tendered projects • group tendered projects • schedules of rates • partnering arrangements.

Ray Taylor and Jack Rawcliffe

December 2005

Consult clients during the options appraisal.

Ray Taylor and Area Managers

December 2005

Implement the agreed way forward. Ray Taylor and Area Managers

March 2006

Structure Undertake consultation on the proposed expansion of the Building Design Unit structure.

Stephen Costello Graham Turner

April 2005

Implement agreed recommendations in respect of the Building Surveying practice.

Ray Taylor August 2005

Draw up rota for 24 Hour Emergency Call-out System.

Ray Taylor September 2005

Systems Develop Repair and Maintenance Strategy.

Gary Jackson March 2006

Area Office Location Relocate South Area Office into the Civic Centre, Leyland.

Mark Warburton May 2005

Evaluate the appropriateness of the current location of the North Area Office (Teanlowe Centre, Poulton-le-Fylde) and implement any recommendations.

Ray Taylor Jeff Heskine

December 2005

5 April 2005