a scrutiny study of value for money issues in the ... · procurement and delivery of minor works...

A Scrutiny Study of Value for Money Issues in theProcurement and Delivery of Minor Works Schemesby the Minor Works Scrutiny Study Group

January 2006

02

Introduction and Terms of Reference 5

Recommendations 5

Methodology 6

Stage 1 – Examination of Completed Schemes 6

Stage 2 – Market Testing 7

Stage 3 – Analysis of the Procedures for Estimating and Surveying 12

General Findings 13

Conclusions and recommendations 16

Glossary of Terms 17

Acknowledgements 18

Contents

$

(Large

Print)

(Audio

Cassette)

03

A Scrutiny Study of Value for Money Issues in the Procurementand Delivery of Minor Works Schemes

An overview and scrutiny report

This is a report of a working group of the Scrutiny

Management Committee. It describes the findings from

a market testing exercise of the cost and value of minor

works - small repairs and improvements such as fencing

and landscaping which are provided by the Council’s

Neighbourhood Service’s Directorate.

If you would like a summary of the report in large print or

audio tape, please let us know by returning this form to

the Scrutiny Management Team, Room 153, Civic Centre,

Newcastle upon Tyne, NE99 2BN or phone 0191 277 7524.

Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Postcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This is a report of a working group of the Scrutiny Management Committee. It describes

the findings from a market testing exercise of the cost and value of minor works - small

repairs and improvements such as fencing and landscaping which are provided by the

Council’s Neighbourhood Service’s Directorate.

If you would like a summary of this report in Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Hindi, Punjabi,

Urdu or Farsi, please return this form to the Scrutiny Management Team, Room 153,

Civic Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE99 2BN or phone 0191 277 7524.

please tick if required

(Ar)

0504

1. Introduction and Termsof Reference

Scrutiny Management Committee

established the Minor Works Scrutiny

Study group in January 2005 to investigate

the validity of concerns about value for

money and quality control in the delivery

of minor works schemes.

The Study Group were keen to clarify, and

where appropriate, suggest improvements

in the procedures for the procurement and

delivery of minor works schemes, and to

satisfy themselves that the prices

estimated and charged by Neighbourhood

Services, are fair and comparable with

those charged by the private sector.

The group’s stated objectives were:

• To enable members to decide whether

the charges for minor works represent

value for money.

• To make recommendations that will

result in the delivery of minor works

being more responsive and timely.

• To make recommendations that

improve the quality control and

signing off for minor works.

For the purposes of the study,“minor

works” are defined as schemes of work

with a contract value of less than £10,000,

identified and dealt with under the

Environmental Ward Stewardship scheme.

2. Recommendations

2.1 The Minor Works Study Grouprecommends that:

(i) Neighbourhood Services should

retain their general monopoly in

terms of the delivery of EWS / minor

works schemes.

(ii) The relationship with the strategic

partners on highway schemes should

be clarified and rationalised in relation

to the delivery of minor works.

(iii) Neighbourhood Services should

record and analyse additional

performance data in relation to

delivery times and quality control

and act on it.

(iv) Neighbourhood Services should

continue to develop ways of making

the scheduling, programming and

delivery of minor works schemes

more transparent to elected members

and local people - the use of Ward

Plans and Localised Working

Initiatives is applauded in this respect.

(v) The market testing exercise should be

repeated biennially on a selection of

schemes representing all the work

streams and different wards of the

City.

A Scrutiny Study of Value for Money Issues in theProcurement and Delivery of Minor Works Schemes


Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Address: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Postcode: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(Pu)

(Ur)

(Fa)

(Ca)

(Hi)

(Be)

0706

In some cases, the schemes demonstrated

the flexibility and resourcefulness of the in

house contractor - unnecessary work had

been dropped in favour of simpler and

cheaper solutions and variations in the

schemes made in response to public

consultation, were made without penalty.

The retrospective scrutiny of these

schemes however, proved to be inherently

difficult because the detailed information

required by members to fully appreciate

the complexities of each scheme was not

available.

It was equally difficult, to make any sort of

value for money judgement on schemes

that were already completed, because

there was no way of testing one

contractor’s price against another

retrospectively. For example, there

appeared to be no way of verifying what

arrangements had been made with

respect to staff welfare (toilets, cabins etc),

quantities and qualities of materials used

and costs associated with the disposal of

waste or rubbish from the job.

The group concluded that the only

reasonable way forward, was to seek the

co-operation of Neighbourhood Services

in a competitive tendering exercise of

minor works that were still in the planning

stage. That is, a selection of schemes where

Neighbourhood Services had estimated a

price for the scheme but the work had not

yet been issued, in order to seek more

clarification and a better understanding of:

• the cost issues associated with

overheads and technical resources,

particularly those associated with

preparing estimates;

• to appreciate the impact on overheads,

of preparing schemes that are not

implemented and;

• to consider how the programming,

scheduling and contract compliance

of minor works could be improved.

5. Stage 2 – Market Testing

5.1 Methodology

The Study Group agreed to commission

Neighbourhood Services to undertake

an appropriate and robust competitive

tendering exercise. One ward stewardship

scheme from each of the 13

Neighbourhood Response Managers’ ward

pairings was to be identified in consultation

with ward members.The brief for identifying

the 13 schemes was:

(i) The scheme must have been

approved by ward members and be

valued between £600 and £10,000.

(ii) The schemes overall, should represent

each of the significant operational

areas delivered by Neighbourhood

Services.

Stage 2 – Market TestingMethodology

Stage 1 – Examination of Completed Schemes


(vi) The current 15% Estimating &

surveying charges should be reviewed

and re-calculated based on the actual

costs of providing the service.

(vii) Neighbourhood Services should

review a sample of the schedule of

rates used to build estimates and

market test them periodically.

(viii) Neighbourhood Services should be

asked to report an action plan, which

reports progress towards working

with the Study Group’s

recommendations.

3. Methodology

3.1 The Study was undertaken in 3 mainstages. These were:

• Examination of a selection of

completed schemes.

• Market testing of 13 minor works

schemes.

• Analysis of the procedures for

estimating and surveying proposed

minor works.

The work done at each stage and the

conclusions drawn are discussed in more

detail below:

4. Stage 1 – Examination of Completed Schemes

4.1 Methodology

The Study Group decided to collect some

examples of recently completed minor

works schemes from across the City and

to assess these schemes in terms of price,

quality and customer satisfaction.

The group wrote to all members of the

council asking for examples to be

nominated. From these suggestions, six

were chosen to represent a cross section

of disciplines within Neighbourhood

Services for example, grounds

maintenance schemes, paving repairs, the

installation of a bin, a parking

management scheme etc.

The selected schemes were taken away

by officers from the Directorate and a

detailed report prepared which discussed

the background and circumstances

surrounding each of the selected schemes

and the issues affecting them.

4.2 Findings

The Study Group found that there was

insufficient evidence from this stage to

draw detailed conclusions or make specific

recommendations. Although inconclusive

the evidence seemed to suggest that for

the majority of the schemes examined,

there appeared to be an advantage in the

work being carried out by the in house

contractor (Neighbourhood Services).

0908

• For schemes over £3,000, 20% was

added to the base quotes from the

strategic highway partners to allow

for the possibility of higher charges

being made for smaller works. NB.

The partner’s schedules of rates have

been drawn up on the basis of

contracts with much higher values

and therefore may not apply to

contracts of much lower values.

The 20% addition could be

considered as a contingency.

5.3 Tender Evaluation Results

• Neighbourhood Services quotes

proved to be the cheapest in 9 out

of the 13 schemes.

• In terms of the non-highway schemes,

where Neighbourhood Services were

not the cheapest quote, the difference

between Neighbourhood Services’

price and the cheapest price was not

significant.

• Amongst the non-highway schemes,

there was a significant number of ‘non

returns’ or ‘unable to quote’ returns

from the companies invited to tender.

• In terms of the highway schemes,

Neighbourhood Services had the

cheapest quote in 4 out of the 6

schemes.

• The difference between

Neighbourhood Service’s quote

and the strategic partner’s estimate

in 2 schemes, was significant enough

to follow up with enquiries to the

strategic partner with regard to

programming the schemes.

5.4 The Study Group’s Evaluation of theNon Highway Minor Works Tenders:

(i) The Study Group is satisfied that

where the tender had been clearly

won by Neighbourhood Services, the

work could be issued and the scheme

implemented forthwith.

(ii) The Study Group agree that where the

tender has been lost by

Neighbourhood Services, but the

Neighbourhood Services quote is

within £100 of the competitor, then

the tender should be awarded to

Neighbourhood Services.

NB: The Group consider that the savings in the tender price would not outweigh the added value of using an in house contractor.

5.5 The Study Group’s Evaluation ofHighway Minor Works Tenders:

(iii) The tenders clearly won by

Neighbourhood Services, or within

£250 of the best estimate, should be

issued to Neighbourhood Services.

Stage 2 – Market TestingStage 2 – Market Testing


(iii) The schemes must be identified and

the tendering process undertaken

within 3 months.

In order add objectivity to the exercise, the

Chief Internal Auditor was asked to act as a

critical friend to Neighbourhood Services

in respect of the tendering process. The

involvement of the Chief Internal Auditor

was deemed vital to lend probity to the

exercise and inspire confidence in the

process.

5.2 Summary of the Tendering Process:

• The 13 selected schemes were all

market tested with companies from

the Council’s Standing List.

• In all cases, Neighbourhood Services

staff prepared the Neighbourhood

Services estimates for the schemes

in advance of the schemes being

selected for the exercise.

• Neighbourhood Services staff

prepared detailed design specification

documents for each scheme.

• In the case of non-highway schemes,

Neighbourhood Services agreed to

invite 4 companies to quote for each

job. 3 companies were taken in order

from the standing list together with

one other randomly generated from

the list.

• In the case of the highways schemes,

Neighbourhood Services compared

their quotes against the schedule

of rates provided to them by their

strategic highway partners - Colas

and Cumbrian.

• Additional charges were added to the

prices from the external contractors to

cover the costs of contract

preparation, development of the

scheme and estimating & surveying

works which would still have to be

carried out by Neighbourhood

Services regardless of who won the

contract. These costs were built into

the Neighbourhood services quotes

and need to be added onto the other

quotes in order to make a fair

comparison. The additional charges

added were:

For Non Highway Works:

• 15% to cover the cost of the

estimating & surveying work during

the contract preparation process.

For Highway Works:

• 10% to cover the cost of initial

estimating & surveying work included

in developing briefs, budgets and

liaison on the development of the

scheme.

• 15% to cover contract management

costs by City Engineering Services

including design development, order

processing, on site measurements,

checks on performance, quality and

adherence to specification and

processing of payments.

1110

(xii) In the case of highway schemes, the

CIA explained that there were 3 sets

of on costs to be considered.

The first is a 10% addition to recoup the

cost of the initial estimating surveying.

The second, is a 15% on cost applied to

recover the costs incurred by City

Engineering Services when a scheme is

developed. CES costs are only added to

external contractor prices - CES do not

charge Environmental Ward Stewardship

Schemes anything.

CIA commented that if this second on cost

is stripped out of the external contractor

quotes then Neighbourhood Services only

becomes the cheapest quote in one of the

schemes and that to be fair, this charge

should be added to both contractors or to

neither.

The Study Group agree with this

observation and would recommend that

future tendering exercises observe this

principal and equalise the application of

costs by CES.

The third, is a 20% addition to the external

contractor quotes to cover ‘risk’. The CIA

explained that their agreement with the

strategic partners was made in respect of

schemes with a much higher value than

the minor works being discussed here. The

tendering process had therefore included

the addition of a 20% premium in case the

contractor was unwilling to apply the large

scheme rates that they work with and to

cover any additional management costs

which smaller schemes imply.

NB: The CIA has discovered that the

partnership agreement does cover works

of all values but the contractor’s schedule

excludes Environmental Ward Stewardship

schemes. There is therefore a potential for

the strategic partners to refuse to deliver

these schemes.

(xiii) The CIA concludes that he is not able

to give a view on whether the 20% is

right or not and is not able to advise

on the appropriate level.

(xiv) If the on costs were equalised

between Neighbourhood Services

and the private sector on highway

schemes, then the comparison would

be fair too.

Stage 2 – Market TestingStage 2 – Market Testing


(iv) Where the difference between the

Neighbourhood Services tender price

and the winning tender price is more

than £250, the strategic partner

should approached to establish their

willingness to deliver the scheme.

Given that both the price and the

programme are satisfactory, then the

scheme should be awarded to the

strategic partner.

(v) N.B. The Study Group understands

that such an approach was made

and the strategic partner expressed

concerns in relation to programming,

planning and lack of continuity in this

case, and would only wish to proceed

if instructed to do so under the terms

of the contract. Although the terms of

the Council’s contract with the

partners do allow the Council to

require them to carry out these works,

insisting on doing so is likely to be

damaging to relations between the

Council and its partners. The Study

Group would not recommend this as

a course of action at this time.

5.6 Chief Internal Auditor’s Evaluation of the Tender Process:

(vi) The tender process had been carried

out in a transparent and fair way.

(vii) Neighbourhood Services had

produced their estimates before the

competitive tendering exercise was

undertaken.

(viii) The companies selected to tender

were taken from the City Council’s

approved list and therefore it could be

assumed they are generally

competitive.

(ix) Whilst he agreed that there should be

a % on cost added to every estimate

for a scheme to recover the cost of

estimating and surveying, he found

little justification for setting it at 15%.

The rate appears to have been set

under CCT and has become accepted

custom and practise. He was not able

to vet the level of the on cost any

further and so, he looked at whether

or not it was reasonable.

(x) Guidance from the Association of

Consulting Engineers suggests these

costs should applied on an hourly rate

of actual time incurred. It has been

estimated that an on cost of around

25% would be a more realistic

approximation of the addition needed

to recoup the costs of estimating

and surveying these schemes.

(xi) The Chief Internal Auditor (CIA) has

concluded that in the case of non

highway schemes, like is being

compared with like and the addition

of 15% on cost to external quotes is

right and proper but may be under

valued - as discussed above.

1312

6.2 Findings:

The Study Group is generally satisfied

with the processes and procedures in

estimating, surveying and issuing work.

The Study Group would however,

recommend a periodic review and retest

of the schedule of rates against which

schemes are estimated. Although the rates

are increased annually inline with inflation,

the group consider benchmarking every 5

years or so to be prudent.

The Group would also like to suggest that

the “Late List” is routinely considered as

part of member’s meetings with

Neighbourhood Response Managers.

7. General Findings

7.1 The Study Methodology

The Study Group and the Chief Internal

Auditor have found key contacts in

Neighbourhood Services to be helpful

and transparent throughout the study -

specifically in giving evidence, preparing

reports and supporting the preparation

of the Study Group’s report and the CIA’s

report.

The Study Group also wish to

acknowledge that through the study

process, initial suspicions, preconceptions

and myths have been dispelled.

The competitive tendering exercise does

involve staff time and resources.

Approximately 2 working weeks of officer

time have been utilised to prepare the

tender packages and analyse the returns.

The Study Group recognises this is an issue

and a cost for future market testing

exercises.

7.2 Competitive Pricing:

The Study Group have been pleased to

verify through a robust market testing

exercise that Neighbourhood Service’s

prices are generally competitive in the

market place and compare well with

companies from the Standing List.

Without prejudice to Neighbourhood

Services, the co-operation of the Strategic

Partners for highways should be secured

in the delivery of Minor Works and those

works included in their schedules. On that

basis, the addition of 20% to their quotes

to cover risk may no longer be reasonable

and their quotes should become much

more competitive. Quotes for highway

schemes should be more routinely sought

from the Strategic Partners and protocols

developed with them in relation to minor

works. For example packaging a number

of schemes together or building minor

works into larger jobs maybe more

attractive to our Partners and be delivered

at the lower rates.

The Study Group recommends that the

market testing exercise be repeated

biennially to ensure that prices remain

competitive.

General FindingsStage 3 – Analysis of Procedures


6. Stage 3 – Analysis of theProcedures for Estimating and Surveying.

6.1 The Study Group looked at theprocedures for estimating andsurveying and found that:-

• Requests for estimates go to

Neighbourhood Services’ Estimating

and Surveying section.

• Estimates are built from schedules

of rates, which were developed as part

of CCT contracts in 1999 - other

estimates for more unusual works

have been developed as required over

the years.

• Neighbourhood Services’ rates have

been developed in a competitive

environment and are the rates used

to win the CCT contract in 1999 - they

have been increased by inflation each

year since then.

• Once an estimate has been approved,

Ward Stewards or Neighbourhood

Response Managers inform Estimating

and Surveying, who act as holders and

distributors and work is issued to the

most appropriate contractor/

operational section. Usually that will

be a Division of Neighbourhood

Services, one of the highway strategic

partners or the street lighting PFI

contractor.

N.B. The strategic partners generally are

given the carriageway improvement

schemes because they have cheaper rates

and offer better value.

• Neighbourhood Services has several

operational divisions, which deliver

Environmental Ward Stewardship

schemes: Environmental

Improvements, Blacksmiths, Highways,

City Grounds, Painting, Building

Maintenance, Arboriculture and Rapid

Response.

• Once work has been allocated and

issued, delivery is anticipated to be

within 6 weeks - unless the scheme

involves Blacksmiths work, traffic

regulations or street lighting.

• Ward Stewards maintain a database

which monitors the progress of each

scheme from issue to completion. This

delivery schedule may be referred to

as the “Late List”.

• Quality Checks following job

completion are automatic on schemes

valued at £500 and over - the original

surveyor for the job visits and signs

the job off (or not if it is not

satisfactory).

1514

The Study Group are not aware of a private

company that can deliver the range of

work streams or disciplines that

Neighbourhood Services boasts and the

group wish to highlight the added value

to our schemes of commissioning work

from a multi-disciplined contractor. Work

requests and producing specifications

for different contractors is therefore

minimised and project management

simplified.

The Study Group has concluded that

it appears that Environmental Ward

Stewardship schemes are under charged

in respect of the recovery of estimating

and surveying costs. The addition of a 15%

on cost to Environmental Ward

Stewardship schemes represents good

value for money for the Ward Stewardship

budget. It should also be noted that this

on cost is not actually charged until the

schemes are commissioned.

Whilst the Study Group commend

Neighbourhood Service’s efforts to keep

prices low for Environmental Ward

Stewardship schemes, the group must also

stress the importance of realistic

recharging. The Group urge the estimating

& surveying section to periodically review

their 15% surcharge to ensure its

consistency with industry practices and

ensure that it covers the cost of the work.

7.5 Timeliness

Planning minor highway works in

conjunction with the programme for

major schemes may lead to co-operation

from the strategic partners on delivery

and best prices.

When planning and scheduling minor

works - particularly highway works - the

local programmes of the strategic partners

should be taken into consideration and

programmed in sympathy. Economies of

scale may create financial savings or

improve public perception if works are

co-ordinated and complementary.

Ward Plans, newsletters, other local

bulletins and community networks could

be used to publicise the programme

which is managed by staff in the localised

working teams. This would also add a layer

to local accountability.

Quality Control and Contract Compliance:

The Study Group has concluded that Ward

Members may wish to be more closely

involved in monitoring contract

compliance. It would be important for

members to be kept informed about the

status of each of their schemes, and it is

suggested that members are included on

the circulation of EWS scheme updates.

Members would therefore be aware of

whether jobs were complete, in hand or

delayed.

The Study Group is satisfied with the

current quality control arrangements on

completed schemes valued at £500 and

above. They provide for an inspection by

the originating surveyor who either signs

the job off or refers it back for further work

if it does not comply.

General FindingsGeneral Findings


7.3 Efficiency:

The Study Group have found that

resources have been saved by unnecessary

work not being carried out.

Timely advice and alternatives to those

specified in the contracts, have been

suggested by operational staff in

Neighbourhood Services, this has resulted

in considerable savings. Private companies

are likely to work to contract regardless

of whether the work is needed or not.

The Study Group has considered the size

of the reserve list of the Environmental

Ward Stewardship schemes and believes

it to be justifiable and appropriate.

Ward Stewardship has a ‘reserve’ of

schemes that have been estimated but are

not yet implemented. There is a cost

attached to producing the estimates

attached to these dormant schemes.

Not all the long list of ideas for a Ward’s

schemes is estimated. Standard and repeat

costs are often used as a rough and

preliminary guide to the likely cost.

Member pressure often results in jobs

going to full estimate but that work is

rarely wasted because it has a

considerable shelf life - percentage

increases can be added each year and

schemes may lie dormant for long periods

of time until funding opportunities arise.

Indeed the larger, more complex schemes

may attract matched funding or funds

from other programmes.

However, ward members are urged to be

prudent about the number of schemes

they request estimates for and to

periodically review and “spring clean” their

lists. The lists can also prove to be a useful

historical record of ward issues, especially

when ward members or ward boundaries

change.

7.4 Added Value:

The Study Group would also like to

highlight and commend the added value

to our schemes, which is gained by using

Neighbourhood Services (an in house

contractor).

The Study Group found numerous

examples where schemes had been varied

at short notice often in response to public

consultation, local priorities or varying

materials or other aspects of contract

specification. The Study Group believes

that most external contractors would not

be willing to respond to these sorts of

requests without penalty or consequence.

The Study Group has also noted and

commended the considerable amount

of public and member consultation that

Neighbourhood Services undertake in the

preparation of schemes for Environmental

Ward Stewardship.

This work is not recharged to the

Environmental Ward Stewardship budgets

and the group is certain that private

contractors would not necessarily have

the staff or skills to undertake this work

or absorb the costs into their overheads.

This cost would therefore have to be

borne by the Council regardless of who

is contracted to carry out the work.

1716 Glossary of TermsConclusions and recommendations


The Study Group recommends that

Neighbourhood Services start to record

the frequency and nature of failed quality

checks and uses this to inform internal

performance management systems.

The Study Group also recommends that

Neighbourhood Services start to record

the time from issue to completion on all

EWS schemes - regardless of their contract

value - as part of internal performance

management. This information should be

used to inform corrective action where

services are persistently failing to meet the

agreed delivery schedules.

The Study Group recommends that there

is more clarity around delivery times in

general and that members and local

people are informed about delivery times

on each scheme. For example, work

streams such as metal work or schemes

involving traffic regulations take much

longer. It is important to ensure that

expectations are realistic and relevant.

8. Conclusionsand recommendations

The Minor Works Study Group has concludedthat it would like to make the followingrecommendations:

(i) Neighbourhood Services should

retain their general monopoly in

terms of the delivery of EWS / minor

works schemes.

(ii) The relationship with the strategic

partners on highway schemes should

be clarified and rationalised in relation

to the delivery of minor works.

(iii) Neighbourhood Services should

record and analyse additional

performance data in relation to

delivery times and quality control

and act on it.

(iv) Neighbourhood Services should

continue to develop ways of making

the scheduling, programming and

delivery of minor works schemes

more transparent to elected members

and local people - the use of Ward

Plans and Localised Working

Initiatives is applauded in this respect.

(v) The market testing exercise should be

repeated biennially on a selection

of schemes representing all the work

streams and different wards of the

City.

(vi) The current 15% Estimating &

surveying charges should be reviewed

and re-calculated based on the actual

costs of providing the service.

(vii) Neighbourhood Services should

review a sample of the schedule

of rates used to build estimates

and market test them periodically.

(viii) Neighbourhood Services should be

asked to report an action plan which

reports progress towards working

with the Study Group’s

recommendations.

9. Glossary of Terms

Standing List: A list, maintained by the

City Council, of external contractors

available for the provision of building

and civil engineering works.

Estimate/Quote: The contractor’s price

for providing the goods or carrying out

the works or services.

Competitive Tendering: A procedure by

which the City Council invites tenders from

private sector providers for carrying out

a function, activity or scheme.

Market testing: A procedure carried out

to validate or compare current

performance or cost of a Service.

Strategic Highway Partners: A company,

or companies, appointed by the City

Council to assist with the delivery of

highways construction services.

Contract Compliance: A action of

ensuring a scheme has been delivered in

accordance with expectations, e.g. within

the required timescale or at the required

standard.

Risk: The potential for a claim/change to

rate being made by the Strategic Highway

Partner, as a result of being asked to carry

out a scheme with a value below £20,000.

On Costs: A percentage addition to an

hourly rate, estimate or quotation to

recover the overheads associated with

a Service.

Overheads: Costs associated with the

running of a Service over and above the

cost of productive labour, e.g. holiday pay,

sick pay, National Insurance,

Superannuation, management, supervision

and administration, insurance, premise

costs, transport costs etc.

1918 Acknowledgements


10. Acknowledgements:

Study Group Members:

Councillors Bill Schardt (Chair), John

Stokel-Walker, Bob Jackman, Gerry Keating,

Lucy McKeever, Bob Walker.

Officers:

Ali Lamb, Kevin Riley, Rob Bradbury, Nigel

Hails, Paul Manning, Paul Herbertson, Tom

Jarman, Ward Stewards and

Neighbourhood Response Managers.

Produced by NDS

Ref: 64378(PD)/02.06/LH

a scrutiny study of value for money issues in the ... · procurement and delivery of minor works...

Documents