Upload
kory-copeland
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© 2013 Hampshire County Council Private and Confidential.
‘Soft’ FM Category Procurement Plan Presentation for Schools October 2015
Baseline July 2015
InitiationJune 2015
StrategyDec 2015
Commitment2016/17
© 2013 Hampshire County Council Private and Confidential.
‘Soft’ FM Category PlanContents
Objectives
Scope
Spend
Governance
Timescales
Engaging schools
2
© 2013 Hampshire County Council Private and Confidential.
High Level Objectives
More strategic, commercial, LEAN procurement solutions
Current solutions are fragmented, tactical frameworks with many suppliers entailing high levels of administrative effort
Fewer, longer term partnership relationships with suppliers (Corporate goal)
LEAN call-off mechanisms for schools and partners
Better take up by Schools and Partners
Current take up is low
Move to County Supplies managing the interface with schools in future for all Categories, extending current role for common use goods and services
Enable Contract Governance
No corporate ownership of the Category contracts at present
There is virtually no Supplier Relationship Management or contract management at present
Corporate goal to work with fewer suppliers, more strategically
Proactively drive value during the contract lifecycle, shift resource from admin3
© 2013 Hampshire County Council Private and Confidential.
Category Objectives (1) (Soft FM) Source: Soft FM Category Steering Group Workshop 16.6.15
4
Overarching •Flexible – can grow and shrink with changing business needs•Being able to adjust to building occupancy – charging mechanisms linked to business drivers•Be able to opt in and out without penalty•Being able to support joining partners e.g. Fire•Being able to support traded/shared services – including outside Hampshire’s boundaries•Length of opportunity to partner – contract length
Value/ Performance•Best value – not necessarily cheapest – fit for purpose, evidenced of service delivery – audit trail – current audit trail is minimal•Ongoing benchmarking e.g. price per unit•KPIs•Cost transparency•Good quality, consistent Management Information, Billing arrangements, spend data
Contract Governance •Identified, appropriate and properly resourced contract management•Levels of governance – Strategic Board and operational management•Contract management on behalf of schools – escalation route•Customer relationship management – involvement in managing the contract •Need succession planning in contract management and client contacts
© 2013 Hampshire County Council Private and Confidential.
Category Objectives (2) (Soft FM) Source: Soft FM Category Steering Group Workshop 16.6.15
5
Partners/traded services•Demonstrate to schools why they would buy from the contract•Continue assurance in HCC procurement arrangements to schools/partners•Needs to be sold to existing and new customers•Recognise the level of support needed to many clients, it is secondary to what the clients do•Need succession planning in contract management and client contacts•Consistent financial models across clients•High client satisfaction, High take-up by schools and partners
Process•Process simple and transparent for call-off•Minimum administration under the contract•Route to sort out problems quickly and effectively•If we do have call-off, manageable call-off – appropriate no. of bidders•LEAN call-off processes, Appropriate use of Procurement Resource
Sustainability •Commitment to equality and diversity•Sustainability outcomes – Environmental, Social, Economic•Support the local economy through the supply chain
© 2013 Hampshire County Council Private and Confidential.
Soft FM (premises related) Category ScopeHierarchy of Key Areas
Interface with Corporate Services Category
Interface with Hard FM Category
© 2013 Hampshire County Council Private and Confidential.
Minor areas of spend in scopeLow value spend lines which are in scope – we will need to consider whether corporate procurement solutions are needed
Category DescriptionHCC
CorporateSchools H3 Partners Total
Calibration Services
Calibration of electrical, lab & science, Medical and non-electrical equipment. Cross-material group.
Total Spend:£11,542.32
No Suppliers = 17
Total Spend:£529.00
No Suppliers = 4
Police:£597.00, 1 supplier
HFRS:No spend
Total Spend:£12,668.32
No Suppliers = 22
Cleaning of Cesspits & Grease Traps
Cesspit emptying and sewerage removal, cleaning of cesspit equipment, drain cleaning / unblocking.
Total Spend:£3,544.93
No Suppliers = 3
Total Spend:£23,323.16
No Suppliers = 11
No spend
Total Spend:£26,868.09
No Suppliers = 12
Lubricants, Greases, Oils & Anti-Corrosives
Various oils and lubricants NOT related to vehicles, including shredder and chainsaw oils.
Total Spend:£4,495.80
No Suppliers = 5
Total Spend:£533.82
No suppliers = 7
Police:No Spend
HFRS:£253.78, 1 supplier
Total spend:£5,283.40
No Suppliers = 13
© 2013 Hampshire County Council Private and Confidential.
Minor areas of spend in scope
Category DescriptionHCC
CorporateSchools H3 Partners Total
M & R – Electrical Equipment
Maintenance and repair of electrical equipment, excluding PAT Testing.
Total Spend:£73,648.11
No Suppliers = 37
Total Spend:£73,922.67
No Suppliers = 106
Police:£4,160.55, 4 sup’rs
HFRS:£952.70, 2 supl’rs
Total Spend:£152,684.03
No Suppliers = 142
M & R – Lab & Science Equipment
Maintenance and repair of laboratory and scientific equipment.
Total Spend:£68,627.14
No Suppliers = 27
Total Spend:£7,528.14
No Suppliers = 10
Police:£1,075.00, 2 sup’rs
HFRS:No Spend
Total Spend:£77,230.28
No Suppliers = 37
M & R – Medical Equipment
Maintenance and repair of medical equipment. Includes access and mobility equipment (e.g. stair lifts)
Total Spend:£5,521.88
No Suppliers = 6
Total Spend:£19,059.34
No Suppliers = 12
No Spend
Total Spend:£24,581.22
No Suppliers = 18
M & R – Non-Electrical Equipment
Maintenance and repair of non-electrical equipment.
Total Spend:£48,397.37
No Suppliers = 33
Total Spend:£87,129.06
No Suppliers = 108
Police:£3,675.04, 1 sup’r
HFRS:£46.92, all P-Card
Total Spend:£139,248.39
No Suppliers = 137
Low value spend lines which are in scope – we will need to consider whether corporate procurement solutions are needed
© 2013 Hampshire County Council Private and Confidential.
Hard and Soft FM Annual Spend via Corporate Contracts
Contracting Arrangement Annual Value Notes(£k)
Hard FM
Term Maintenance Contract (Kier, SSE, Emcor) 12987 Some spend may migrate to minor works
Electrical Testing & Inspection (SSE) 314
Grounds Maintenance (Multi-Supplier Framework) 5,313First £10k of rebate to Property Services. Remainder, circa £25k, to Procurement.
Specialist Arboriculture (Multi-Supplier Framework) 336 No rebate.
Premises Revenue Costs for Schools (Ad-Hoc) 1,500Actual value is £3,464,411.00, but some an element is better suited to minor works framework
Hard FM Total 20,450
Soft FM
Cleaning (Hayward, N-Viro, Biorite, YBC, Braybourne) 4,694 Top 5 providers shown
Catering (Innovate, IPA, Eden, Amuse Bouch) 1,099Top 4 providers shown
Security (Keyline, Walker, Kestrel, Youth Justice, G4S) 448Top 5 providers shown
Pest (Kestrel, Austen, CMA, Cannon, Landmark) 108Top 5 providers shown
PAT (Hooper, Pattico, P&R, Safety Masters, PAT Test South) 139
Top 5 providers shown. Significant amount of PAT Testing is undertaken in-house
Post (Royal Mail, Neopost, Cross Country, Purchase Power, Pitney Bowes) 1,457Top 5 providers shown
Waste (SITA, Grundon, Cannon Hygiene) 3,257Top 3 providers shown
Soft FM Total 11,202
© 2013 Hampshire County Council Private and Confidential.
Soft FM Category Procurement Steering GroupTerms of Reference
10
© 2013 Hampshire County Council Private and Confidential.
Timescales
11
• Initial Workshops with Steering Group inc. school reps June 2015
• Survey with Schools July-Oct 2015
• Further workshops with Steering Group Oct, Nov 2015
• Children’s Services/Schools engagement Oct, Nov 2015
• Proposals to Corporate Board MMG Dec 2015
• Member Approval and commence Sourcing early 2016
• Next generation procurement solutions implemented mid-2017
© 2013 Hampshire County Council Private and Confidential.
Engaging Schools
Schools representation at Steering Group Workshops
Survey with Schools
Attending existing meetings and forums
Schools comms to follow
Stakeholder Group with representatives from schools and other Children’s Services establishments
12