Agenda item

Purpose: To review the efficiency and effectiveness of Property Services in relation to contracts and the use of contractors in schools. 

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5) in continuation of its work to review the efficiency and effectiveness of Property Services in relation to contracts and the use of contractors in schools. 

Steve Broughton highlighted the following key points in relation to the repeated school survey:

·                    The survey reinforced what was already identified following the Property Service review and the original school survey.  The Property Service action plan sought to address these issues.  This included improvements to communication with schools, with further surveys planned and more informal contact both during and post a project.  Test surveys had been run with Theale Green Community School and Mortimer St Johns Infant School. 

·                    The full list of comments provided by schools responding to the survey had been examined and noted.  Steve Broughton felt that many of these were historical and had been addressed previously,  although trend analysis had been undertaken.  However, concerns remained for some schools based on their previous experience of work undertaken.  There were also some positive responses, albeit minimal. 

·                    There was no specific target to increase the number of schools buying back services, but there was a desire to maximise this. 

·                    It was acknowledged that the project management methodology needed further development and this had been picked up in the action plan.

·                    Many issues related to the cost of the Council’s maintenance term contractor, Kier.  It was acknowledged that schools did need to pay a premium for the contract which included emergency call outs.  However, quotes provided were often challenged and in some cases an alternative contractor had been used.  A working group had been set up to discuss the future of this contract which included schools and Education Officers. 

Some of the particulars of the Kier contract were then discussed.  Andy Green advised that the contract was in its eighth year.  It had been renewed for a further three years on the completion of the original five year contract.  The contract was due for renewal in April 2011.

It was made clear to schools that the contract was not meant for minor works and a handyman service had been offered on a trial basis to schools.  However, there had not been a great take up at this stage.  This was partly due to the fact that some schools employed caretakers. 

Members queried whether there was sufficient awareness of this service.  Steve Broughton confirmed that it was included in every Property Service newsletter and communicated at the Education Management Advisory Board.  Mark Lewis added his view that information needed to be regularly communicated to schools in this way. 

It was queried whether the issue raised by a number of schools in relation to the way in which jobs were invoiced and paid had been incorporated into the action plan.  Schools reported that they were not always aware of final prices and this therefore impacted on their budget monitoring.  Andy Green explained that as schools could not access the Council’s financial system, Agresso, Property Services were authorised to process payments on their behalf.  However, schools were involved as follows:

·                    They were provided with a quote for the requested work.

·                    They signed off the work when they were satisfied that it was completed.

·                    Information was provided on the work undertaken, materials used etc.

·                    Schools were notified when the actual cost started to exceed the estimate, this was more often the case for reactive work.  Schools were also sent actual charges on a monthly basis.

·                    Schools did have a time period in which they could raise concerns before payments were made.  

·                    A checking process was utilised to ensure that orders and invoices were accurate.  This covered 10% of jobs.

Members remained concerned that not enough invoices were being checked prior to payment which could cause pressure on school budgets.  It was questioned why schools did not see invoices relevant to them.  Andy Green advised that this was because the contractor provided one itemised invoice for a period of time and not a number of separate invoices.

Steve Broughton acknowledged that although these checks were in place, elements of the process needed to be strengthened.  These aspects were being taken forward through the Property Service action plan, as follows:

·                    The maintenance arrangements had changed and the two previously separate teams had been combined. 

·                    Each school had been allocated a surveyor, if for any reason this was to change then the school would be informed.  This was one aspect of improved communication with schools. 

Mark Lewis then made the following comments on how he felt schools viewed the services provided:

·                    Negative comments based on historic faults were generally a fair assessment. 

·                    However, improved communication had let to a better understanding within schools.  A good example of this was the improved relationships between schools and their surveyors. 

·                    Mark Lewis was pleased to note that he was receiving fewer messages of concern from schools and this pointed to improvements, but it did take time to change perceptions. 

The suggestion was then made that more minor services should not be offered and concentration should be given to providing major works and emergency services in the new contract.  It was agreed by Officers that consideration would be given along those lines, however, the reactive, emergency and service contracts should still be provided, and, if possible, made mandatory.  Councillor Barbara Alexander, Portfolio Holder for Education, and Margaret Goldie, who were both in attendance for another item gave their support to pursuing the approach of not providing minor services.  Although the major services referred to could not be made mandatory as schools were autonomous. 

It was queried whether requests from schools for minor works to be undertaken by Kier were redirected.  Steve Broughton agreed this could happen and it would give an opportunity to provide quotes for the handyman service. 

Councillor David Rendel put forward a proposal that schools should receive a copy of the invoice sent to the Council.  This would enable the schools to approve the final figure before the Council made payment.  Members were in support of this proposal and Andy Green agreed to set up a process to take this forward via e-mails with schools. 

Councillor Jeff Brooks then made a proposal, which was supported by Members, that the Select Committee should assist with the production of a new school survey to help inform future services.  This would include seeking to gain a fuller understanding of current issues affecting the decision of whether or not to buy in to services and would have a score rating on the level of service provided.  Steve Broughton reiterated that it was his intention to produce a survey that requested feedback both during and post a project.  Councillor Barbara Alexander agreed that a covering letter could go from her to support the school survey.  This would take place later in the year when it was hoped that progress would have been made and a more positive return would be received. 

RESOLVED that:

(1)               Property Officers would give consideration to not providing minor services to schools with concentration given to major works and emergency services in the new contract.

(2)               Minor works requested by schools in the existing Kier contract should be redirected, possibly to the handyman service.  This element should be retained if minor works continue to be offered in the new contract. 

(3)               Andy Green would set up a process to ensure that schools approved the final amount invoiced for works undertaken, before payment was made by the Council.

(4)               Steve Broughton would produce a new school survey to help inform future services with assistance provided by the Select Committee.  The survey would take place later in the year when it was hoped that progress would have been made and a more positive return would be received.  A covering letter would go from Councillor Barbara Alexander to support the survey.