EXECUTIVE AND RESOURCES POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND …

EXECUTIVE AND RESOURCES POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Meeting to be held on Wednesday 11 October 2017

Please see the attached report(s) marked “to follow” on the agenda.

11 BT/ICT CONTRACT MONITORING REPORT (Pages 3 - 24)

13 TFM CONTRACT (AMEY) (Pages 25 - 42)

16 CONTRACT CHANGE CONTROLS (Pages 43 - 58)

Copies of the documents referred to above can be obtained from http://cds.bromley.gov.uk/

BROMLEY CIVIC CENTRE, STOCKWELL CLOSE, BROMLEY BRI 3UH TELEPHONE: 020 8464 3333 CONTACT: Philippa Gibbs

[email protected]

DIRECT LINE: 020 8461 7638

FAX: 020 8290 0608 DATE: 2 October 2017

http://cds.bromley.gov.uk/

This page is left intentionally blank

1

Report No. CSD16105

London Borough of Bromley

PART ONE - PUBLIC

Decision Maker: EXECUTIVE AND RESOURCES POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Date: 11th October 2017

Decision Type: Non-Urgent

Non-Executive

Non-Key

Title: BT ICT contract monitoring report

Contact Officer: Stuart Elsey, Head of ICT 020 8313 4542 E-mail: [email protected]

Chief Officer: Mark Bowen, Director of Corporate Services

Ward: n/a

1. Reason for report

The second performance report of the BT ICT contract utilizing the Pan London Framework, covering year 1 Q3 & Q4 and Year 2 Q1& 2

________________________________________________________________________________

2. RECOMMENDATION

The Executive and Resources PDS is requested to note the information contained in this report on the performance of BT in their delivery of ICT services during the period 1St September 2016 – 31St October 2017. The report has been split into years 1 (2016/17) and year 2 (2017/18). This allows the report to cover Q3 & Q4 of the first full year including a first full year review and the first half of year 2.

Page 3

Agenda Item 11

2

Corporate Policy

1. Policy Status: Existing Policy:

2. BBB Priority: Excellent Council: ________________________________________________________________________________

Financial

1. Cost of proposal: N/A

2. Ongoing costs: N/A

3. Budget head/performance centre: Information Systems – BT contract budget

4. Total current budget for this head: £2.42m

5. Source of funding: Existing revenue budget 2017/18 and Capital Programme ________________________________________________________________________________

Staff

1. Number of staff (current and additional): N/A

2. If from existing staff resources, number of staff hours: N/A ________________________________________________________________________________

Legal

1. Legal Requirement: None

2. Call-in: Not Applicable: ________________________________________________________________________________

Customer Impact

1. Estimated number of users/beneficiaries (current and projected): ICT systems used by all LBB members, staff and the General public

________________________________________________________________________________

Ward Councillor Views

1. Have Ward Councillors been asked for comments? N/A

2. Summary of Ward Councillors comments: N/A

Page 4

3

3. COMMENTARY

3.1 Background

3.1.1 BT was awarded the ICT contract in October 2015 and commenced on 1st April 2016. The service is divided into 3 distinct service area’s as defined by the Pan London Framework.

Lot 1 - End User Computing (desktop / laptops etc)

Lot 3 - Data Centre Services (servers / storage).

Bespoke services - Cover the remaining elements of networking and helpdesk.

The contract is predominately consumption based therefore is flexible and as services are reduced then the cost decrease, conversely if an element is used more often, then the costs would increase.

3.2 Service Performance

3.2.1 Lot 1 End user computing - Year 1 Quarter 3 + Quarter 4: There were no breaches of Key performance Indicators (KPI) in this reporting period.

3.2.2 Lot 1 End user computing - Year 1 review. There has only been a single KPI breach in the first full year which due to the circumstances was given a waiver as reported in the previous monitoring report. Overall, we believe that given that this was the first year this is an excellent performance.

3.2.2.1 Lot 1 End User Computing – Year 2 Q1 + Q2: As we enter year 2 there are no breaches of KPI showing consistently high performance.

3.2.2.2 Lot 3 Data Centre Services - Year 1 Q3 + Q4: there was a single breach of KPI in September 2016 on the P3 call service. This was due to an urgent change in scope on an outsourcing contract. The only way to accommodate this change and prevent that process failing or being delayed was to use a BAU resource to undertake the work. The remaining team members picked up as much additional work to maintain the service but we did fail on the low priority (P3) resolutions. Given that this was an urgent Bromley request BT were granted a let for that KPI. This shows that BT and Bromley are willing to be as flexible as possible to achieve the service that LBB require and work truly as partners.

3.2.3 Lot 3 Data Centre Services - Year 1 review: In year 1 there have been 2 breaches in the KPI’s one of which was given a Waiver as detailed above. The KPI that failed was identified (Lync call handling) and changes made to the process. There has been no re-occurrence of that failure.

3.2.4 Lot 3 Data Centre Services – Year 2 Q1 + Q2: As we enter year 2 there are no breaches of any KPI’s with the service showing consistently high performance.

3.2.5 Bespoke Services: Bespoke services cover the service desk, Network and backup services.

3.2.5.1 Service desk – Year 1 Q3 + Q4: There have been a total of 5 KPI breaches, 2 in October 2016, 2 in December 2016 and 1 in January. October was due to staff sickness therefore the KPI penalty was applied. In December LBB were upgrading a software package and when the updates were applied it caused an intermittent problem with seemingly random user accounts becoming locked out. Unfortunately, the symptoms were not immediately obvious and this happened over a few days and we were alerted to an increase of calls to the helpdesk for users becoming locked out. The product was taken offline and BT assisted LBB in resolving the issues. Unfortunately, this had an effect in the number of calls to the

Page 5

4

helpdesk which then caused a breach of the 2 KPI’s in October. Due to the recent failure of the KPI rather than give a complete waiver to the whole KPI for that month, we allowed BT to excluded account lockout calls from the KPI calculations for the days that the product was running. Once removed then the KPI returned normal levels. The Third KPI breach was in January 2017 related to calls abandoned. This was explained as a member of staff on leave and another being off sick. Lessons have been learned from that and additional staff are being trained to cover the LBB helpdesk thus minimising the risk of staff shortage. There has been no repetition.

3.2.5.2 Service Desk – Year 1 Review: there has been 5 individual KPI breaches and 2 waivers. The 2 waivers were given as they were caused by LBB as detailed in the Q3 + Q4 section above. Given the importance of the helpdesk as it is at the sharp end of the IT service we believe this has been an extremely good first year, however it does highlight a need to closely monitor the number of incoming calls and appropriate staffing levels to ensure that the high level of service to LBB staff is maintained.

3.2.5.3 Service Desk – Year 2 Q1 + Q2: There have been no breaches of the KPI in this reporting period however here has been an increase in the call volumes taking us above the baseline figure. We have reviewed the call breakdown and there is no individual spike highlighting an issue that we can immediately address. Please see call volumes for further information.

3.2.5.4 Call Volumes: The service desk receives typically 2 types of request which are Fault calls and service requests. The service desk receives between 1900-2400 calls per month, with the higher percentage being service requests. Since February 2017 we have seen continued growth in the call volumes with a peak in May of nearly 3000 calls and as mentioned above there is no single reason for this increase although user administration, which includes user setup & configuration changes, has seen the largest increase. To ensure that the service does not drop performance we will need to increase the number of staff on the helpdesk to maintain service levels which does have an impact on the costs. The baseline is monitored and if the calls drop over a 3 month period we will re-baseline and our costs will accordingly be reduced. In the meantime, we are still monitoring calls to determine any underlying issues that we can resolve to help reduce call volumes.

3.2.5.5 Analysis of Calls: Looking at the breakdown of the calls to the help desk are around e-mail. This increase is due to the exchange migration project which has been extremely challenging. Whilst much of the work is being done out of hours the users can still impacted when they next logon. Once the project is completed we would expect the number of calls to reduce as the system enters a stable state. Carefirst is another aging system which has recently been moved to a hosted platform prior to the implementation of the new Eclipse product. This should reduce the number of calls as the new system is more stable and less reliant on older technologies. Lync is the councils telephony system used by all members of staff, therefore has a wider user base than almost any other system. Although a relative low number of calls over the year have been logged with the service desk it requires further investigation as it is a key communication channel for the public. Once the analysis of the Lync estate is complete we will remediate any issues found.

3.2.5.6 Service charges: The initial budgetary figure for the BT contract as reported to Executive in October 2015 was £1.85 Million. Following due diligence the actual figure reduced to £1.67 million. So far with the consumption model we have saved circa £73k to date. As we continue with upgrading and decommissioning servers and reducing staffing volumes this decrease will continue.

3.2.5.7 Networking: The network BAU service is covered under the lot 1 & 3 KPI’s as incidents are generated from end user device / Server connectivity issues. There is a specific KPI for internet connectivity. The actual internet service provider is via the London Public Service

Page 6

5

Network, who provide a 200mb resilient solution to the authority. BT are responsible for ensuring that the internet connection is available from and to the LBB network. This KPI has not been breached. However there was a complete outage from the service provider which affected Bromley and the majority of the UK on the 7th July 2017. Since this is not within BT’s control there was no impact to the SLA’s and the LBB infrastructure was available.

3.2.5.8 Backup: The Backup Appliances were brought across from Capita and as part of the infrastructure refresh project the backup appliance has been upgraded and its storage capacity has been extended. Moving forward there is additional functionality that we can use now that our new storage area network is available and all data moved to this.

3.2.5.9 E-Mail Summary: The levels of e-mail received have increased slightly over the past year to around 400,000 per month. The number of Spam messages has remained relatively consistent and are being blocked. Once again the biggest drop has been in traditional virus infected e-mail with minimal being received. Looking at industry trends this is a typical pattern as currently more effort is being put into ransomware as this is becoming the most profitable. Ransomware is where a machine is compromised and the files on the computer are encrypted. The only way to decrypt the files is to pay a ransom in bitcoins to the creators of the ransomware and hopefully receive a ‘key’ to unlock your files. Typically these types of threat are spread in e-mails, many of which are actually detected as spam as the e-mails themselves contain no malicious content but provide a link to an infected website, hence there is no malicious content to ‘find’ within the e-mail.

3.2.5.10 Customer Satisfaction Survey: The yearly staff satisfaction survey has not yet been sent out. This has been due to the increased workload that project Esther has created. Once this has been completed then a survey will be run in November 2017.

3.2.5.11 Change requests: There are 2 main types of work packages. Service requests and Contract Change Notifications (CCN’s). Service requests are small pieces of work such as user administration requests and small / simple PC moves & changes. The cost for this type work is part of the main contract and typically covered by the BAU service. CCN’s are for work not covered by the core contract. This could be for major updates to the live environment run by B.T. such as a major refresh project or to assist with installing a new system or service being installed by a 3rd party.

3.2.5.12 The CCN’s use the same rates as the contract pricing which are regularly reviewed and bench marked by Westminster to ensure they represent value for money. CCN’s are either Fixed price or Time and Materials (T&M) depending if the outcomes can be clearly time boxed. T&M CCN’s are typically larger scale work packages which are monitored in regular project meetings.

3.2.5.13 Several key projects have been undertaken by BT including the major refreshes to the live environment including Server 2003 replacement, SQL server update & consolidation, Application migration, SAN migration and migration of the Virtualised server environment. As part of these we have been able to decommission a significant number of servers which reduced the baseline costs. These have been partly offset by new servers we have had to bring online as we under take changes to several of our key applications such as our e-mail system.

3.2.5.14 Performance of CCNs are measured individually, but overall performance has been very good with the majority of projects being delivered on time, on budget and without any problems, however as with any major IT projects there have been challenges on some of the key infrastructure refresh projects which have to be dealt with and BT have displayed a degree of adaptability and partnership working that we have not experienced with other outsourcers.

Page 7

6

3.2.5.15 As can be seen by the chart we have undertaken a large number of projects. The amount of projects we are undertaking is quite exceptional however given the number of changes happening within the organisation this is perhaps to be expected. These figures also includes a number of infrastructure projects that were not completed by the previous outsource supplier and we have to complete to remain secure and achieve the necessary levels of security compliance.

3.2.5.16 Major CCNs are typically funded by capital schemes in the case of ISD, but there has also been funding pulled from the technology fund to replace a large number of PC with laptops in adult & children services.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 The actual spend on the BT contract for 2016/17 was £2.32m compared to a revenue budget of £2.40m. The under spend of £80k relates to the variable element of the contract. In addition a sum of £360k was spent on capital schemes.

4.2 As at 31 August 2017, no variance has been projected against the revenue budget of £2.42m and £67k has been spent on capital schemes

Non-Applicable Sections: Policy Implications, Legal Implications, Personnel Implications

Background Documents: (Access via Contact Officer)

BT Performance report.

Page 8

Policy Development & Scrutiny Committee Version 1 28-09-2017 i of 16

BT Business & Public Sector BT Performance Report Policy Development & Scrutiny Committee

29th September 2017 Final v1

Page 9

Policy Development & Scrutiny Committee Version 1 28-09-2017 2 of 16

Document Information

Document Title: BT Policy & Scrutiny Committee Report

Document Subject: London Framework BT Performance

Author: Andrew Gee

Author Contact Details: [email protected]

Issue and Date: 29/09/2017

Distribution: Nick Adams – Business Development Officer

Hayden Edwards – Client Delivery Director

Stuart Elsey – Head of IT Bromley

Page 10

mailto:[email protected]


Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................. 4

2. Service Performance .................................................................. 5

2.1. Key Performance Indicators Lot 1 End User Computing (EUC) ................... 5

2.1.1. KPI Performance EUC September 2016 to March 2017 .............................. 5

2.1.2. KPI Performance EUC April 2017 to July 2017 ............................................ 6

2.2. Key Performance Indicators Lot 3 Data Centre Services ............................. 7

2.2.1. Performance for September 2016 to March 2017 ........................................ 7

2.2.2. Performance for April 2017 to July 2017...................................................... 8

2.3. Key Performance Indicators Service Desk .................................................. 9

2.3.1. Performance for September 2016 to March 2017 ...................................... 10

2.3.2. Performance for April 2017 to July 2017.................................................... 11

2.4. Call Volumes ............................................................................................. 12

2.5. Analysis of calls. ........................................................................................ 14

3. Change ..................................................................................... 16

Page 11


1. Introduction

This report has been produced for the Policy Development & Scrutiny Committee to provide an update on the performance of BT delivering the services called off against the London Framework. The report covers the period from September 2016 to March 2017.

Page 12


2. Service Performance

Each Lot has a set of Key Performance Indicators that are reported on. Failure to meet these targets without an agreed reason, results in a credit to Bromley.

2.1. Lot 1 End User Computing (EUC)

Lot 1 EUC covers End User Device Management, Service Management Services and maintenance of services such as email. There are 9 KPI reported on for Lot 1 EUC.

2.1.1. Lot 1 End user computing - Year 1 Q3 + Q4

BT have performed consistently well against the KPI’s for Lot1 with no targets missed in the period. The table below shows the performance for the period.

KPI Ref Description Target Mar-17 Feb-17 Jan-17 Dec-16 Nov-16 Oct-16 Sep-16

EUC-KPI-01 P1 Restoration 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

P2 Restoration 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

P3 Restoration 90% 95% 98% 95% 92% 94% 93% 96%

P4 Restoration 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99%

EUC-KPI-02 Critical Application Availability

99.70% 100% 100% 99.93% 99.95% 100% 100% 100%

EUC-KPI-07 Anti-virus, Firewall, and Malware File Release

95% of the time

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

EUC-KPI-08 Install, Move, Add or Change (IMAC)

90% of the time

100% 100% 95% 95% 97% 94% 95%

EUC-KPI-10 Image Management 99% of the time

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

EUC-KPI-12

Asset Management: Hardware and/or Software Inventory Accuracy

95% accuracy

95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

EUC-KPI-13 Non Achievement of KPI’s

Any 3 KPIs

missed in 6 months or 5 KPIs missed in 12 months

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Page 13


2.1.2. End user computing Year 2 Q1 + Q2

No missed targets for the period.

KPI Ref Description Target Jul-17 Jun-17 May-17 Apr-17

EUC-KPI-01 P1 Restoration 99% 100% 100% 100% 100%

P2 Restoration 95% 100% 100% 100% 100%

P3 Restoration 90% 97% 96% 96% 97%

P4 Restoration 90% 100% 100% 100% 100%

EUC-KPI-02 Critical Application Availability

99.70% 100% 100% 99.98% 100%

EUC-KPI-07

Anti-virus, Firewall, and Malware File Release

95% of the time

100% 100% 100% 100%

EUC-KPI-08 Install, Move, Add or Change (IMAC)

90% of the time

98% 97% 94% 100%

EUC-KPI-10 Image Management

99% of the time

100% 100% 100% 100%

EUC-KPI-12

Asset Management: Hardware and/or Software Inventory Accuracy

95% accurac

y 95% 95% 95% 95%

EUC-KPI-13 Non Achievement of KPI’s

Any 3 KPIs

missed in 6

months or 5 KPIs

missed in 12

months

100% 100% 100% 100%

Page 14


2.2. Lot 3 Data Centre Services

These performance indicators measure how BT manage the infrastructure in the Bromley Data Centre. There are currently 7 Key Performance Indicators reported on for Lot 3.

2.2.1. Lot 3 Data Centre services – Year 1 Q3 + Q4

Incident management, resolving issues within the set target has been continued from a good start and has been consistently good for the period. One KPI was missed in September 2016 for P3 (low priority calls). This is reflected in yellow as the reduced performance was a direct result of a request to re prioritise specific resources to meet an urgent project demand. While the performance missed the target, this was a good example of the flexibility the partnership offers, with the ability to re-prioritise resources at short notice to meet urgent needs without additional cost. In return Bromley acknowledged the likely hood of missing a specific KPI and waivered the specific credit connected with the SLA.

Critical System availability measures the time systems are available as a percentage of the time the system is expected to be available. Many of the applications are supported by Bromley contracts with other third parties, so typically this measurement relates to the availability of the infrastructure that the applications sit on. Much of this infrastructure is currently being refreshed, however the current performance has exceeded the target each month, clearly showing that systems have been available for use.

The table below shows our performance against Lot 3 Key Performance Issues for period September 2016 to March 2017.

KPI Ref Description Target Mar-17 Feb-17 Jan-17 Dec-16 Nov-16 Oct-16 Sep-16

DC-KPI-01 P1 Restoration 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

P2 Restoration 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

P3 Restoration 90% 93% 94% 93% 91% 100% 98% 81%

P4 Restoration 90% 96% 96% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

DC-KPI-02

Critical Application Service Availability

99.7% for Business Hours 1

100% 100% 100% 99.99% 100% 100% 100%

DC-KPI-06 Backups 98% 99.12% 99.82% 99.78% 99.61% 99.63% 99.79% 99.76%

DC-KPI-08 Non Achievement of KPI’s

Any 3 KPIs

missed in 6

months or 5 KPIs

missed in 12

months

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Page 15


2.2.2. Lot 3 End User Computing – Year 2 Q1 + Q2

All performance targets were met for the period.

KPI Ref Description Target Jul-17 Jun-17 May-17 Apr-17

DC-KPI-01 P1 Restoration 99% 100% 100% 100% 100%

P2 Restoration 95% 100% 100% 100% 100%

P3 Restoration 90% 99% 93% 94% 91%

P4 Restoration 90% 100% 100% 100% 100%

DC-KPI-02

Critical Application Service Availability

99.7% for Business Hours 1

99.99% 100% 99.99% 99.99%

DC-KPI-06 Backups 98% 98.20% 99.81% 99.95% 99.60%

DC-KPI-08 Non Achievement of KPI’s

Any 3 KPIs missed in 6 months or 5

KPIs missed in 12 months

100% 100% 100% 100%

Page 16


2.3. Key Performance Indicators Service Desk

The BT Service Desk is delivered from a BT Centre in Chesterfield. The desk is setup to resolve as many calls within the “first point of contact team” as possible without the need to pass the call onto another team and thereby giving a more joined up and better user experience for people contacting the desk.

There are 9 KPI’s currently being reported on to measure how effective the desk is performing. Below is a summary of the performance indicators we have in place for the service desk function;

1: Service Request Response; A target of 90% of requests for a service to be acknowledged

within 4 hours to ensure calls are handled promptly.

2: Service Request Resolution; A target to resolve over 90% of Service Requests within 5 days to ensure that most calls are fixed within a reasonable time scale. BT are consistently performing around 98% with the lowest figure being 97%.

3: Internet available 100% of the time

4: Speed to answer; 85% or more calls to be answered within 30 seconds.

5: A target of no more than 3% of calls abandoned

6: First Time Fix; A target of 70% for calls resolved by the service desk without the need to pass to another team. We have consistently been above this however we are continuing to move processes to the desk to improve the experience.

7: Number of open Incidents as percentage of all Incidents; A target to ensure that we aren’t holding onto old calls to and not closing them.

8: Reopened calls; This target of no more than 3% of calls unopened ensures that engineers are closing calls correctly and only a small number are being reopened due to call not being fixed. This target ensures the engineers consider the customers view before closing the call.

Page 17


2.3.1. Service desk – Year 1 Q3 + Q4

The table below is a summary of the Key Performance Indictors in place for the Service Desk. Three KPI were missed for this period. In October 2016 the volume of calls combined with staff absence in one week caused a failure to meet two KPI, speed to answer and abandoned calls. Additional resources were allocated to the desk to recover but unfortunately the two KPI were not met. In December 2016 a third party product not managed by BT caused a major impact for many Bromley users. BT worked in partnership with Bromley to resolve the issues by taking resources off the desk to work through agreed action. The issue took 3 days to resolve completely and during this time the desk was overwhelmed with calls. We reviewed the issue and by removing the 3 days of call data the KPI were comfortably met. As the failure was the result of third party software failure it was agreed that a waiver would be applied to these figures. The KPI for Abandoned calls missed by 1% in January 2017. During January 2016 additional resources were added to the helpdesk. The benefit of the additional resource has been realised since February 2017 with all KPI met and exceeded since that date.

Ref

Description Target Mar-17 Feb-17 Jan-17 Dec-16 Nov-16 Oct-16 Sep-16

BES-KPI-01a Service Request Response

=<4 hours 90%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

BES-KPI-01b Service Request Resolution

=<5 days 90%

99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 98% 98%

BES-KPI-02

IT Service Management System (Service Management)

100.00% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

BES-KPI-03 Internet Connectivity

100% 100.00% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

BES-KPI-04 Speed to Answer

=<30 seconds

85% 94% 92% 88% 85% 85% 82% 85%

BES-KPI-05 Call abandoned

=<3% 1% 2% 4% 3% 2% 6% 3%

BES-KPI-07 First Time Fix (FTF)

70.00% 78% 74.% 78% 79% 77% 74% 78%

BES-KPI-10

Number of open Incidents as percentage of all Incidents

<=7% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1.5%

BES-KPI-11 Reopened calls

<=5% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2%

Page 18


2.3.2. Service Desk Year 2 Q1 + Q2

Performance for the Service Desk performance indicators was good for the period with no failures.

The level of calls has increased by 20-30% over the last 6 months due to an increased demand for New Users or changes to user accounts. We have been monitoring call volumes against are model and are currently reviewing additional resources for the desk to manage the increased call volume to protect these KPI.

Ref Description Target Jul-17 Jun-17 May-

17 Apr-17

BES-KPI-01a Service Request Response

=<4 hours 90%

98% 100% 100% 100%

BES-KPI-01b Service Request Resolution

=<5 days 90%

100% 99% 99% 99%

BES-KPI-02

IT Service Management System (Service Management)

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

BES-KPI-03 Internet Connectivity

100% 100% 100% 100% 100.%

BES-KPI-04 Speed to Answer

=<30 seconds

85% 88% 91% 92% 90%

BES-KPI-05 Call abandoned

=<3% 1% 2% 3% 3%

BES-KPI-07 First Time Fix (FTF)

70.00% 75% 75% 78% 76%

BES-KPI-10

Number of open Incidents as percentage of all Incidents

<=7% 4% 4% 1% 1%

BES-KPI-11 Reopened calls <=5% 1% 1% 2% 1%

Page 19


2.4. Call Volumes

The graph below shows the volume of calls logged with the service desk between September 2016 and July 2017. There is an increase of calls of approximately 25% which is holding for the last few months. The increase in calls relate to Requests to setup/ add/change users.

Volume of calls is monitored by looking at a 3 month rolling period to even out peaks and troughs re call volume

The graph below shows a figure for each month, based on an average volume of calls over a three month period.

The graph below shows the volume of calls logged by the Service Desk and the proportion of calls that are faults (incidents). Faults relate to calls/e-mails to the Service Desk reporting a failure in a system. These are managed as Priority 1 to 4 faults, 1 being a complete system failure with a 4 hour target to fix. Service Requests are contacts to the Service Desk where the user is asking for something to be

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Total Calls logged

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

January February March April May June July August

Average over 3 month period

Page 20


done. New User, change of permissions or a new PC would all be Service Requests. The SLA for a Service Request is 5 days.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Chart Title

Service Request Incident

Page 21


2.5. Analysis of calls.

Summary of the 3 systems generating the most calls to date this year.

1. e-mail E-mail is critical to how we work and one of the most if not the most used application. We are currently in the middle of upgrading the e-mail platform which sits on a new set of servers. Improved reliability is one of the many benefits we expect to get from the new system.

2. CareFirst is a widely used system critical to the function of the council, the level of calls are high. A replacement for Adult Services users is expected to go live this year which should improve the experience for end users.

3. Microsoft Lync has a high level of calls raised reflecting ongoing intermittent issues. The system is relatively new and implemented shortly before the BT contract started. The call volumes have triggered a Service Improvement Activity with a full review of the Lync setup completed. A set of agreed actions to correct any issues will be put in place.

.

Analysis of call Priority for Incidents/Faults

As expected most calls relate to individual users having either a significant fault impacting, 1 or a few users impacted by a fault, e.g. user contacting the desk to say their laptop is unable to work.

We have recently upgraded our system that monitors and manages e-mails coming into and leaving Bromley.

The chart below shows a weekly view since the upgrade of the volume and categories of e-mails coming into Bromley.

System top 3 impacted Calls year to date

Microsoft Office Outlook 701

CareFirst 233

Microsoft Lync 166

Priority Calls Logged

Critical p1 29

High P2 61

Medium P3 1715

Low P4 3733

Grand Total 5538

Page 22


A breakdown of the two main categories, SPAM and non-Spam is shown below.

Overview of e-mail Total incoming e-mail for last 3 months 1,200,655 Total SPAM 131,919

Non Spam Spam

Page 23


3. Change

Several of the key infrastructure projects have been completed or are in the final stages of completion by the end of q3 2017. These include the new storage system and the Server 2003 upgrade and the replacement of the Virtual server infrastructure. This has led to greater stability within the LBB environment and provides the foundations for further improvements which are now being undertakes such as the SharePoint and exchange upgrades. These will lead to further stability improvements and provide additional functionality that will allow some 3

rd party software to be decommissioned leading to

ongoing cost savings for Bromley both in the reduction of software licensing & support and the reduction in the core contract as servers are decommissioned.

Key support projects:

BT has supported LBB at critical events including:

Elections – executed without issue and

Replacement of Security components / Firewalls

Urgent Roll out of 250 laptops for Children Services.

BT has completed a significant volume of project work since the start of the contract beyond the highlights above. Below is a chart summarising the number and status of projects since the 1

st April

2017

4 3

30

24

130

CCN Summary

BT Responding

Awaiting Approval

Cancelled

In Delivery

Completed & Invoiced

Page 24

1

Report No. DRR17/046


PART 1 – Public

Decision Maker: EXECUTIVE AND RESOURCES PDS COMMITTEE

Date: Wednesday 11 October 2017


Non-Executive

Non Key

Title: TOTAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT CONTRACT – CONTRACT PERFORMANCE REPORT

Contact Officer: Michael Watkins Head of Asset and Investment Management [email protected] 0208 313 4178

Chief Officer: Colin Brand, Director of Regeneration

Ward: All


1.1 This report provides information on the performance of the Total Facilities Management (TFM) Contract provided by Amey Community Limited and their sub-contractor Cushman and Wakefield for the period 1st October 2016 to 31 August 2017.

1.2 A letter from the Amey Account Manager, provides his update on each of the individual performance elements of the contract and is attached at in Appendix 1.

________________________________________________________________________________

2. RECOMMENDATION(S)

The Committee is requested to note and comment on the information contained within this report and the letter provided by Amey detailed at Appendix 1.

Page 25

Agenda Item 13

mailto:[email protected]

2

Impact on Vulnerable Adults and Children 1. Summary of Impact: It is not considered that there will be any impact on Vulnerable Adults and

Children. None. ________________________________________________________________________________

Corporate Policy


2. BBB Priority: Excellent Council: ________________________________________________________________________________

Financial

1. Cost of proposal: N/A

2. Ongoing costs: Recurring Cost N/A

3. Budget head/performance centre: N/A

4. Total current budget for this head: N/A

5. Source of funding: N/A ________________________________________________________________________________

Personnel

1. Number of staff (current and additional):N/A

2. If from existing staff resources, number of staff hours: N/A ________________________________________________________________________________

Legal

1. Legal Requirement: No statutory requirement or Government guidance.

2. Call-in: Applicable: ________________________________________________________________________________

Procurement

1. Summary of Procurement Implications: N/A ________________________________________________________________________________

Customer Impact

1. Estimated number of users/beneficiaries (current and projected): N/A ________________________________________________________________________________


1. Have Ward Councillors been asked for comments? N/A

2. Summary of Ward Councillors comments: N/A

Page 26

3

3. COMMENTARY

BACKGROUND

3.1 The July 2016 Executive agreed to award to Amey Community Limited the following areas of work as part of the Total Facilities Management Contract.

• Operational Property (including statutory compliance)

o Reactive

o Planned

• Facilities and Support Services

o Mail services

o Committee Room Support

o Porters and attendants

o Print management

o Cleaning

o Security

• Strategic Property (including statutory compliance)

o Acquisitions

o Disposal

o Management of Non-Operational portfolio

o Capital Works

3.2 The contract went live in respect of Operational Property and Facilities on 1st October 2016 with Amey and with Cushman and Wakefield in respect of Strategic Property on 1st December 2016. In addition the Council operated a large number of legacy contractual arrangements until 1st April 2017 in relation to operational property due to the inability to break these contracts earlier.

SERVICE PERFORMANCE

3.3 The service is operating as per the specifications contained within in the contract

3.4 Services have been on the whole delivered as per specification and without impact to the efficient running of the Council`s business. There have been a small number of matters which have raised concern and these are detailed in the table below: -

Page 27

4

Issue Problem Impact Resolution

Cleaning of Civic Offices

Amey underestimated resources for cleaning

Some areas not cleaned. Complaints received and matters escalated to Dep Rep Forum.

Amey brought in additional resource to bring back to standard and implement clear communications as to what will be cleaned and when.

Renewal of allotment Leases

Cushman & Wakefield’s communication approach as to rationale was poorly handled

Allotment holders raised concerns as to future of sites with various Members

Cushman & Wakefield set out clear objectives to allotment societies to explain what they were doing.

3.5 All of the above matters have been reviewed and lessons learnt so as not to repeat the same mistakes.

3.6 The contractual relationships are in a satisfactory state – the contractual governance in place supports this and the relationship has been one of collaboration and seeking solutions to issues as they arise.

3.7 Since the letting of this contract the needs of the business have not changed.

RISK

3.8 A number of risks have been identified by Amey/Cushman and Wakefield since the contract started. These are not risks associated with the construction of the contract but as to the level of works previously undertaken by the Council and the lack of accountability and ownership to ensure that the Council was fully compliant in some Health and Safety areas where there is a statutory requirement to inspect, maintain and take remedial actions.

3.9 When Amey carried out its Due Diligence prior to the start of the contract, they identified risks around statutory compliance, which were highlighted to the Executive in the TFM Commissioning report on 20 July 2016. Since their appointment, Amey has been undertaking a major review of the Council’s maintenance budgets and compliance. They have reviewed the Council’s obligations and the previous cyclical, asbestos and water hygiene (legionella) schedules. They have identified two major concerns with the Council’s regimes for water hygiene and cyclical maintenance and have recommended an increase in the budget costs against these two budget heads.

3.10 A report was considered at the 22 March 2017 Executive and appropriate measures and budget increases were approved.

3.11 It should be noted that this action was as a direct consequence of Amey reviewing the Council’s portfolio and bringing in professional commercial expertise.

Page 28

5

3.12 Following the concerns raised nationally with regards to Fire Safety in occupied buildings, Amey were asked to rapidly undertake Fire Risk Assessments (FRA’s) to 171 Operational Properties across the estate.

3.13 A programme has been produced prioritising by risk categorisation, as to the level of occupation, which is being delivered to and concludes at the end of September 2017 at which point a report will be prepared for Executive consideration.

BENEFITS

3.14 The Amey proposal identified the following benefits which have been delivered:-

A guaranteed revenue savings of £210k p.a.

Scope for further efficiencies in the delivery of some of the Operational and Facilities Management Services which they proposed should be shared 80/20 in favour of the Council

Provides resilience

Provides capacity

Provides Commercial experience

Provides flexibility to call off strategic work as required whereas officers had to tender for this work.

Will deliver a 5% reduction on Cushman & Wakefield’s Framework rates for all new Capital projects (which will be benchmarked to ensure value for money).

Identified the potential to generate new income opportunities £1m p.a.

3.15 The proposal from Amey and Cushman & Wakefield identified full year revenue savings of £210k for TFM services effective from the date of transfer.

3.16 Cushman & Wakefield identified savings in strategic property of £60k p.a. of which £12k was funded from a vacant technical support post (0.6 fte), £8k from their own internal reorganisation and £40k from restructuring of the valuation team post transfer.

3.17 Amey also confirmed their savings of £150k p.a. which was generated from reviewing the overall resources needed in the operational property division. There were several vacant posts which transferred across to Amey and contributed towards this saving figure.

3.18 It should be noted that the Council have contracted Amey/Cushman & Wakefield to deliver Services within a fixed cost envelope. Incentivised Savings

3.19 Amey also identified scope for further potential efficiencies in the delivery of some of the Operational and Facilities Management Services which they proposed should be shared 80/20 in favour of the Council

3.20 In addition Cushman and Wakefield will also, on an incentivised basis, seek to grow the Council`s net investment income (excluding property generated by new capital) by a minimum of £1m (index adjusted) within three years. This will be achieved by:

Reshaping the investment portfolio to improve returns and income growth prospects.

Adopting a more commercial approach to managing rents.

Adopting a more commercial approach to service charge recoveries.

Page 29

6

3.21 The incentive for Cushman and Wakefield will be that after the first £350k of new income

generated for the Council, they will retain a % of the income based on a banded fee, detailed below: - Band 1 0 to £350k of increased income No fee Band 2 £351k to £700k 7% of increment Band 3 £701k to £1m 10% of increment

3.22 It should be noted that the Asset Strategy will be presented at the January Executive and is in line with the above projections.

MANAGEMENT 3.23 The key personnel involved in contract management/‘intelligent customer’ roles are all staff in

post and the team is not incurring additional third party support or carrying any vacancies. The teams focus is that of managing the TFM Contract and ensuring that performance is monitored and managed to its conclusion. This is being achieved through strict adherence to the governance process set out within in the contract and by building collaborative relationships with the key Amey/Cushman and Wakefield teams.

3.24 The client side team has the necessary resources to manage the contract successfully.

CONTRACT GOVERNANCE

3.25 Monthly minuted Service Operations Board meetings are held jointly with the Amey/ Cushman & Wakefield Accountant Managers to review performance measures and identify issues and review remedies. In addition progress on major projects are also monitored and issues arising investigated. These meetings also review the Amey Invoice for the preceding month and deal with any cost variations.

3.26 A monthly Works in Progress meeting is also held with the Amey Projects team which links into the above Service Operations Board cycle.

3.27 Every three months a minute Strategic Operations Board is held again with senior representation from Amey/Cushman & Wakefield together with the Directors of Regeneration and Commissioning, the Resources Portfolio Holder and the contract management/”intelligent- client” lead. This Board reviews progress of the contract and reviews measures to ensure that contractual obligations are met and if required variance orders or additional scope requests are considered and authorised. The Service Operations Board also can escalate matters to the Strategic Operations Board.

3.28 The membership, frequency and terms of reference for these boards are specified within the TFM Contract. To date all scheduled meetings have taken place and minutes/action logs circulated as required.

REVIEW OF CONTRACT PURPOSE

3.29 The Council continues to occupy property for its own purposes and hold various interests in other property assets. Consequently there is an ongoing requirement to ensure that the management of the Councils property assets is undertaken in a professional, compliant and value for money driven approach. The TFM Contract allows for this approach to be delivered.

Page 30

7

4. SERVICE PROFILE / DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 Attached at Appendix 1 is a letter from Darren Nolan, the Amey Account Manager, detailing his

view as to the service offering from 1st October 2016.

4.2 It should be noted there was a contractual 6 month period where no KPI’s were applied due to mobilization and transitional arrangements. In essence this means that data for FM was captured from April 2017 and in respect of Cushman and Wakefield from June 2017.

4.3 The service operating to defined parameters. Whilst there are financial penalties which can be applied to incentivise the supplier to improve performance these have not had to be applied during this reporting period.

5 PLANS FOR ONGOING IMPROVEMENTS IN PERFORMANCE 5.1 The contract has performed well throughout the period and the transition of staff to new

employers went well as did the subsequent re-organisation of the respective teams. 5.2 Workloads and outputs are now being measured and reported to the Council. During the

migration process and subsequently there has been no business interruption or financial impact. 6 PLANS FOR ONGOING IMPROVEMENTS IN VALUE FOR MONEY 6.1 It should be noted that the Asset Strategy will be presented at the January Executive and will

make recommendations to generate significant capital receipts from non-operational property holdings the Council hold.

6.2 Amey are in the process of creating Service Delivery Plans for component parts of the FM

Service which will further the opportunity to generate improvements for efficiencies and thus create further savings. This work is anticipated to be completed by 1 December 2017.

7. USER / STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION

7.1 Customer comments have been favourable and whilst a number of complaints relating to

cleaning (see 3.4 above) have been received there have also been a number of positive compliments recorded. These are further elaborated in the Amey letter at Appendix 1.

8. SUSTAINABILITY / IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

8.1 The Amey Supply Chain ensures that wherever possible local suppliers will be utilised – currently three out of the seven prime sub-contractors are Bromley based with the other four being national suppliers with regional (SE London) bases.

8.2 Amey also provides services to the London Borough of Bexley and as such there are synergies

which are currently being investigated to ensure operational optimization linked to local contractors.

10. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

10.1 Moving to a Commissioning Authority is in line with the Council’s Corporate Operating Principles and is key to achieving the Building a Better Bromley 2020 Vision in ensuring that

Page 31

8

services continue to be provided as efficiently and effectively as possible, in light of the financial pressures facing the Council over the next few years.

11. COMMISSIONING & PROCUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS

11.1 The TFM Contract commenced on 1st October 2016 for a term of five years with an option to extend for a further 3 years.

11.2 The contract contains provisions for the transfer of services at such time as a new provider is

identified, however at this stage these are not being pursued due to the early stage of life of this contract.

11.3 Internal Audit undertook a Health Check in early 2017 as to the Procurement Process,

Governance arrangements and contract monitoring process and concluded there were no grounds for concern.

12. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

12.1 Part year savings of £95k were achieved compared to the original figure of £105k. This was due to staff transferring to Cushman & Wakefield on 1 December 2016 rather than 1 October 2016.

12.2 Full year savings of £210k are expected for 2017/18.

12.3 With reference to 3.19 to 3.21 above no further savings have been identified, as at the end of September 2017.

13. PERSONNEL CONSIDERATIONS

13.1 The transition of 36 staff to new employers went well as did the subsequent re-organisation of the respective teams.

14. LEGAL CONSIDERTAIONS

14.1 This report is a contract performance report for the Total Facilities Management Contract.

14.2 Rule 23 of the Contract Procedure Rules requires an annual update to be submitted to the Council when the value of the contract is in excess of £1 million. This is part of the monitoring arrangements.

Non-Applicable Sections: None


None

Version CP@5/16

Page 32

9

Appendix 1 Letter from Amey Contract Manager

9/28/2017

Nolan, Darren Amey PLC Civic Centre Stockwell Close Bromley BR1 3UH Michael Watkins London Borough of Bromley Civic Centre Stockwell Close Bromley BR1 3UH Dear Michael, As we approach the October 2017 Executive & Resources PDS meeting where we consider and review the

Total Facilities Management (TFM) contract, we write to you with Ameys assessment of our performance to

date.

The summary covers performance to the end of August 2017

Mobilization and Transition:

The contract commenced on 1st October 2016 following months of data gathering, measurement and review of

current assets, condition, life cycle, etc. This enabled Amey to understand any Statutory compliance issues

and risks associated. We initially transferred 29 LBB employees into Amy and over the next three months

assessed roles and responsibilities along with the impact of the “new ways of working”. This resulted in a

headcount reduction of 4 posts.

On 1st December 2016 the Strategic Property element of the contract commenced provided via our partner

Cushman & Wakefield (C&W). Six LBB employees transferred to C&W who are supported by the wider world

of C&W.

Many of the LBB incumbent contracts relating to Property Services did not expire until post transfer date and

as such we took a phased approach to either onboarding the incumbent or providing the services via the Amey

supply chain. This was over a period of approx. 6 months concluding in April 2017.

Following the initial transition of resource and services we are moving towards a self-delivery model for service

lines such as cleaning and Mechanical and Electrical (M&E) engineering. This will provide greater control of

resource and allocation of workload, less reliance on supply chain along with financial efficiencies. The

cleaning self-delivery commenced on 1st April 2017 and the M&E commenced on 1st August 2017

Expansion:

Initially, Fire Risk Assessment were not within the scope of this contract. However, it has since been decided

that we provide the service in 2017 with a view to adding it to the contract via Change Control. This will provide

a more consistent and transparent process in terms of managing all statutory compliance matters.

Page 33

10

There is potential for this contract to support more Capital Project schemes such as the Education projects as

well as exploring how the Framework agreement can benefit both parties going forward.

Benefits:

A more coherent, joined up approach to all property matters by creating a closer relationship between Amey

and Cushman & Wakefield.

Amey has brought a detailed understanding of the operational property stock, needs & risks as a result of the

pre mobilization efforts.

Amy brings speed of procurement and access to its supply chain

Innovations:

A Contract re-structure was undertaken to align skills and competencies with the contractual delivery

obligations.

A review of Capital and Revenue Project processes has been undertaken resulting in a slicker approach in

terms of recording and reporting on both operational and financial performance.

The transition to a self-delivery model providing Cleaning services predominantly to the Civic Centre,

consisting of the transferring of 16 operatives as well as the additional hiring of an on-site Supervisor and day

Janitor.

The transition to a self-delivery model providing M&E services to the Operational Property estate, consisting

of the hiring of 7 engineers that cover electrical, mechanical and handyman skillsets

Re-procurement of Multi Function Device (MFD) paper supplies via the Amey supply chain resulting in cost

reduction

Overview of Service provision

Please see below for a breakdown of our service provision against contract.

Yours Sincerely,

Nolan, Darren

Account Manager

Amey PLC

Page 34

11

1. Key Performance Indicators:

The KPI’s are based on a balanced scorecard and measured across 6 key areas of contractual delivery and

compliance as below:

Key Monthly

Area KPI Max Score

1 Health and Safety 18%

2 Contract Compliance 16%

3 Hard FM 17%

4 Soft FM 17%

5 Finance 16%

6 Projects 16%

TOTAL 100%

KPI Definitions:

Health and Safety – includes any notifiable incidents or breeches.

Contract Compliance – relates to the management of the contract in terms of Governance processes,

capability and escalation routes.

Hard FM - includes Statutory Compliance, Planned Preventative Maintenance and Reactive Services to

agreed Service Level Standards.

Soft FM – includes Cleaning, security, porterage, printing and associated management.

Finance – relates to the measurement of value for money, procurement processes and accuracy of financial

information given.

Projects – relates to the delivery of individual Capital and Major Works delivered via the Contract to agreed

Service Level Standards.

Each area has a number of measurable service outputs which are scored to create an overall Area Monthly

Score. For example as previously highlighted, Hard FM includes Statutory Compliance, Planned Preventative

Maintenance and Reactive Services to agreed Service Level Standards.

Page 35

12

2. Reactive Work-stream Volumes:

The table below represents the volume of reactive Facilities Management tasks logged via our Computer

Aided Facilities Management system by service stream. Data sets were initiated from January 2017 as

reporting and KPI performance did not commence until April 2017.

Category Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug

Maintenance

Requests

283 267 244 308 163 258 234 206

Cleaning

Requests

23 8 12 12 4 39 27 17

Pest Control

Issues

2 1 0 1 5 5 2 1

Security

Requests

2 1 3 0 0 3 1 0

Porterage

Requests

122 81 23 41 176 72 205 183

Waste

Collection

Requests

7 8 5 7 16 20 25 15

The above table details the range of reactive calls made from staff to the Computer Aided Facilities

Management system. The majority of which relate to Maintenance requests across the various properties we

support. In comparison to our other contracts Bromley’s levels of logged calls are in line with the London

Boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, Bexley, Hammersmith and Fulham and Westminster.

We are in the process of developing a set of metrics to demonstrate this and to assist in future benchmarking.

We review these data sets on a real time basis and with the Client Team at the monthly Service Operations

Board to explore any emerging trends. As with most FM Contracts, the majority of reactive calls relate to

minor maintenance requests and are quickly responded to.

To date there have not been any identified trends which have required intervention with the exception of

cleaning where we have had difficulties in the migration of the previous contract into our self-delivery model

mainly due to labour shortages this this caused some service delivery failings and required us to acknowledge

this and priotirse the rectification plan. It should be noted that whilst there were cleaning issues, overall

premises were still being cleaned and the relevant Soft FM KPI target was being met.

3. Planned Preventative Maintenance Tasks Issued and Completed

The table below represents the volume of Planned Preventative Maintenance tasks issued and completed

within the Service Level Agreements since contract commencement and for the report period.

Page 36

13

SLA Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug

Pass 274 275 403 314 229 299 252 311

Fail 21 8 16 8 4 4 7 1

The Fail tasks completed out of the SLA timescales related to the issue of sub-contractors not providing

completion reports in a timely manner - however on investigation these did not reflect the actual position in

relation to service delivery but were due to the transitional administration of sub- contractors submitting the

relevant documentation late once a task had been completed. In essence the work had been completed on

time. Consequently, a series of workshops were held with the sub- contractors to ensure a clear understanding

of contract protocols and more accurate reporting.

4. Projects

As previously mentioned ibn the KPI definitions above, Projects relates to the delivery of individual Capital and

Major Works delivered via the Contract to agreed Service Level Standards.

We have undertaken a variety of different Projects on behalf of Bromley which are reported on a monthly basis

to the Client Team. Each month`s score is blend of the following activities; population and management of a

risk register, to produce and submit feasibility reports in an agreed timeframe, production of planned

programme and to follow Project Management procedures. I am pleased to say that in all cases this is being

delivered.

5. Complaints/Compliments:

The table below details the number of complaints logged for the period Jan 17 – Aug 17 data sets were

initiated from January 2017 as reporting and KPI performance did not commence until April 2017.

Jan Feb Mar April May Jun Jul Aug

Complaints

Recorded

0 2 0 4 2 4 0 6

Compliments

Received

7 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

A system is in place to record and deal with complaints. Complaints are reviewed and analysed at the Monthly

Service Operations Board meetings.

6. Individual Key Area Performance % Indicators:

The tables below provide a breakdown by month in regard to how we have performed against the KPI’s in

terms of actual % score against the total % for that category. Formal KPI measurement did not commence

until 1st April 2017 therefore no data is included for period Oct 17 – Mar 17.

Page 37

14

April May Jun Jul Aug

Health

and

Safety

18/18 18/18 18/18 18/18 18/18


Comp-

liance

16/16 16/16 16/16 16/16 16/16


Hard FM 14/17 14/17 14/17 16/17 17/17


Soft FM 15/17 15/17 15/17 14/17 14/17


Finance 16/16 16/16 16/16 16/16 16/16


Projects 16/16 16/16 16/16 16/16 16/16

7. Overall Performance:

The table below details our overall performance against all of the Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) since

April 2017 following the KPI holiday period of 6 months. Any score below 95% attracts a financial penalty.

KPI Score

Month Max Score Achieved Min Score

April 100% 96% 95%

May 100% 96% 95%

June 100% 96% 95%

July 100% 96% 95%

Page 38

15

August 100% 97% 95%

8. Cushman & Wakefield KPI’s In addition, our sub contractor Cushman & Wakefield also report on a series of KPI’s in relation to the estates /

asset management service line. The first set of KPI results is detailed below as they have in effect only been

reporting from June 2017 following the contractual 6 month KPI free period from their service commencement

on 1st December 2016.

The relevant KPI’s are detailed on the next page below:

Page 39

16

KPI No.

Linked

Contract or Specification

Ref

Service Area

Type

Indicator Outcome Required

Performance Target (where

relevant informed by current volumes)

Reporting Frequency

July 2017

August 2017

Sept 2017

1

Schedule 2 (SP072)

Property Database & Transparency Agenda

Critical SAM Service Objective

Maintain an accurate property database of all LBB properties and ensure Transparency Agenda is delivered so that the Customer is fully compliant by Q4 2017/18

Service provider to ensure Customer is: 75% compliant by January 2017

Quarterly

85% compliant by April 2017

95% compliant by July

2017 and thereafter 2

Schedule 2 (SP04) & Cl ause 35.1.2

Innovation

Continuous Improvement

Demonstrate to the Customer that innovation and continuous improvement are priorities in the performance of the contract.

Submit a minimum of 6 viable suggestions per annum to improve end user satisfaction of services received and deliver savings, with 1 idea submitted during every 2 month period (~17% every 2 months)

Annually

3

Schedule 2 (SP085)

Accommodation Strategy


To provide quarterly details of occupational space analysis and moves undertaken together with recommendations to improve space optimisation and in collaboration with Customer's client deliver the Civic Centre Accommodation Programme

Provide quarterly details of occupation space analysis and recommendations for space optimisation.

Quarterly

4

Schedule 2 (SP003-SP017)

Disposals


To manage the Customer’s Disposals Programme and report performance against this Programme on a monthly basis by the beginning of Q2 of 2017/18.

Develop and agree with the Customer's client a Disposals Programme by April 2017.

Monthly.

5

Schedule 2 (SP065 - SP068)

Valuations


Conduct valuations on 100% of the Customer's Property Portfolio annually, for statutory purposes.

Value 100% of the Customer's Property Portfolio annually with 25% of valuations the Customer's Portfolio being completed and reported quarterly.

Annually

6

Schedule 4 & SP022,23,30 & 34

Finance and Audit / SAM Performance

Financial reporting requirement

Report monthly on portfolio performance including value of rent roll, arrears by age, voids, improvement opportunities (lease events such as rent reviews, lease renewals and regears). Report to compare contracted, opportunity & actual totals.

Report monthly on revenue income and expenditure.

Monthly

Unless market conditions or strategy mean that it is not in the Council's best interests, serve all rent review notices within three months of review date and agree terms on lease renewals within six months of expiry date.

7

Schedule 18 (Customer's Policies), all HR Policies

Vetting and Training

HR

Vetting and training of staff to be conducted in line with best practise and LBB policies to ensure the workforce is adequately trained and qualified. Personnel files and information on individuals suitability and qualifications to be made available within reasonable timescale

100% of vetting and training of staff to be conducted in accordance with best practise and the Customer's HR Policies.

Annually

8

SP012

Stategic Asset Management Performance

Free School Applications - Disposals

Report on the number of transfers of education land achieved in accordance with timescales to deadline set by Customer's Education Department.

100% of current transfers to be reported along with timescales achieved and those required.

Quarterly

9

SP029

Stategic Asset Management Performance

Measurement of Portfolio Performance

Assess the performance of investment properties (including shopping centres) to enable an assessment of whether properties should be retained or sold to ensure

90% of investment properties assessed annually.

Quarterly

Page 40

17

End.

Page 41


1

Report No. CE001634


PART ONE – PUBLIC

Decision Maker: EXECUTIVE AND RESOURCES POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Date: 11 October 2017


Non-Executive

Non-Key

Title: CHANGE CONTROL NOTICES

Contact Officer: Lesley. Moore, Director of Commissioning Tel:02083134633E-mail:[email protected]

Chief Officer: Lesley Moore, Director of Commissioning

Ward: All


1.1 This report provides an update on changes made to the process around Change Control Notices in light of recent internal audit reports.

1.2 The report also sets out the position on CCNs for the two main contracts within the Chief

Executive’s Department

2. RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is requested to note and comment on the information contained within this report.

Page 43

Agenda Item 16

Tel:02083134633E-mail:[email protected]

2

Impact on Vulnerable Adults and Children 1. Summary of Impact: N/A

Corporate Policy


2. BBB Priority: Excellent Council

Financial

1. Cost of proposal: Not Applicable:

2. Ongoing costs: Not Applicable:

3. Budget head/performance centre: Third Party Payments across the Council

4. Total current budget for this head: circa £190m

5. Source of funding: Existing Budgets

Personnel

1. Number of staff (current and additional): N/A

2. If from existing staff resources, number of staff hours:

Legal

1. Legal Requirement: As set out in relevant contracts

2. Call-in: Not Applicable:

Procurement

1. Summary of Procurement Implications: As per individual Contracts

Customer Impact

1. Estimated number of users/beneficiaries (current and projected): N/A


1. Have Ward Councillors been asked for comments? Not Applicable

2. Summary of Ward Councillors comments:

Page 44

3

3. COMMENTARY

3.1 The specification and management of change control is an important area of contract

administration. Any changes to services, standards, processes or procedures are likely to have an effect on service delivery, on performance, on costs and on whether the contract continues to represent value for money for the Council or profitability for the contractor.

3.2 The Contract will incorporate clear and agreed change control procedures (CCN) and all changes to the contract must be fully recorded in accordance with the change control procedure that is set out in the relevant Contract. Therefore, effectively the CCN is ensuring that there is a legally binding amendment in place with all variations to the contract formally agreed and signed off by all parties.

3.3 It is important that even when things are going well, proper recording of all amendments to the contract are maintained and the agreed Change Control procedure followed. In the life of a long contract, there will inevitably be changes to personnel (and even to the ownership of the contractor). The time and trouble to keep an accurate record of changes and precisely what was agreed and when, may become invaluable when circumstances change (audit trail). This will further ensure the Councils interests are protected.

Understanding the implications of Change

3.4 Changes to the contract may affect the scope, the transfer of risk and even the financial viability of the arrangement, for either the Council or the contractor. It is therefore vital that the implications of change are understood.

3.5 It is also important to remember that if a change increases the scope of the contract significantly, it may take the Council outside the scope of the original specification or OJEU notice and it may be unlawful.

3.6 Changes generally have to be agreed by both parties to the Contract. It is therefore critical that any contractual requirements are followed and cost & service implications agreed.

3.7 It is also possible that some changes may be necessary in order to be compliant with any amendments in the law. The details of the contract should make it clear who is responsible for any costs associated with such changes. The contract terms should be checked should such circumstances arise.

Internal Audit Issues

3.8 In the last few years a number of Internal Audit reports have identified a significant number of Priority 1’s on contracts, due to a lack of change controls being properly put in place when contracts have been varied or modified.

3.9 In a number of these, while it may be that member approval has been obtained to the change

requirements, these have not subsequently been properly followed up in terms of notifying and agreeing the impact of these changes in the contract. It is clear from recent discussions with a number of our contract managers that there is confusion about what is legally required to be put in place, and that a committee report and emails between the contract manager and provider is not a legally binding contract.

3.10 In the light of this, the Director of Commissioning has issued new guidance and a standard

CCN to all contract managers (to supplement the CCN in the Contract), which is available on

Page 45

4

the Managers Toolkit. The Director of Commissioning is also leading on awareness and training for staff which should provide more confidence going forward.

3.11 A further change to existing practice is that when waiver forms are completed to extend

existing contracts, these will no longer be signed off by the Director of Commissioning (if above £50k) unless a CCN is also in place.

3.12 Finally once the new contract database is fully populated with all historically information

reports will be able to be run to highlight any changes in contract sums etc. 4. CHIEF EXECUTIVES DEPARTMENT 4.1 The two largest contracts within the Chief Executive’s department are Liberata and BT. 4.2 Since the award of the Liberata contract in April 2011there have been 109 Change Controls

agreed which are listed on Appendix 1. 4.3 The original Contract with BT was awarded in April 2016 divided into 3 separate areas as set

out in the Pan London Framework. Since then there have been two Change Control Notices issued as follows:

CCN01195 Extension of existing contract - £7.8m (£2.6m p.a.)

CCN01196 Transfer of remaining ISD staff - £9.4m (£1.557m p.a.) 4.4 There are separate documents held within the ISD Client Unit for One-Off Projects and

Service requests EDUCATION, CARE & HEALTH DEPARTMENT 4.5 Appendix 2 sets out the change control notices agreed by ECHS over the last year ENVIRONMENT & COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 4.6 A report will come back to this Committee in November 2017 listing the Change Controls for

ECS. 5. PROCUREMENT IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The Councils Contract Procedure rules clearly sets out what is required by officers if contracts are to be varied in anyway. The Contract itself will also set out what action is required to vary a contract (this will have a section within the contract that deals specifically with this). It is the overall responsibility of the Director to ensure their staff fully understand and comply with these regulations.

6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 It is important that a formal signed contract is in place at the commencement of the contract start date and no payments should be made to the service provider until any outstanding contract issues have been resolved.

6.2 It is also important to capture all changes to contract terms & conditions during the length of the contract through agreed Change Control Notices which are signed off by all parties. This

Page 46

5

will ensure that any disputes around performance or risks can then be legally addressed and help mitigate any losses for the Council.

7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The, common law allows for a written contract to be changed by subsequent mutual agreement from both parties, whether oral or written. A contract can, even be varied by an oral agreement or by its parties’ conduct, even where the contract itself contains a “no oral variation” clause. This position has been recently clarified and confirmed by the Court of Appeal in a case between Gloobe Motors and RW Lucas Varity Electric Steering Ltd where the His Honour Lord justice Beatson I stated “The consequence in this context is that in principle the fact that the parties' contract contains a clause [preventing oral variation] does not prevent them from later making a new contract varying the contract by an oral agreement or by conduct. This was endorsed in the subsequent case of MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited –

v- Rock Advertising Limited

7.2 This position can create potential for ambiguity and uncertainty on what was agreed and makes it essential to ensure that variations are recorded in writing to prevent a change in a fundamental principle of a contract arising from a loosely worded email or telephone call. The Council requires that all variations are completed by all officers managing the Contract in writing and where necessary also have the council seal affixed.

Non-Applicable Sections: Personnel


Commissioning Division, Legal Dept., Managers Toolkit, contracts held with Managers etc.

Page 47


CCN

Ref. Service

001 Payroll

002

003 Council Tax

004 Exchequer Services 005 Council Tax

006 Council Tax

007008 Debtors

009 Cashiers

010 Payroll

011 Council Tax

012 Benefits

013 IT

014 Debtors

015 Debtors

016 Contract

017 Cash Collection

018 Debtors

019 Accounts Payable

020 Exchequer Services

021 Debtors and Accounts Payable

022 Council Tax

023 Contract Fee

024 Pensions

025 Payroll & Pensions


027 Debtors


029 Benefits

030 Benefits

031 Business Rates

032 Debtors

033 Debtors

034 IT

Bromley Contract 2011 to 2020 Register

of Change Control Notices

Page 49

035

Council Tax and Business

Rates

036 Council Tax

037 Pensions

038 Contract

039 Customer Services

040 Business Rates

041 Pensions

042 Contract

043 Contract

044 Business Rates

045 Financial Assessments

046 Appointee / Deputtships

047

Housing and Council Tax

Benefits


049 Business Rates

050 Debtors

051 Debtors

052 Benefits

053 Payroll

054 Sold Services

055 Sold Services

056 Sold Services

057 Sold Services

058 Bromley Knowledge

059 FERIS

060

Customer Services - Baseline

Reviews

061

Financial Assessments,

Deputy & Appointeeship,

Finance Statutory and HR

Statutory

062 Finance Statutory

063 CTAX Recovery

064


Benefits

065 Cash Collection


067


Benefits

068 Cashiers and Postal Services

069


Benefits


071 Debtors

072 Pensions

073 Benefits

Page 50

074 Pensions

075 Debtors

076 Business Rates

077


Benefits

078


Benefits


080 Cashiers

081 Mortgages

082 Appointee and Deputyship

083 Cashiers


085

086 Revenues and Benefits

087

Revenues, Overpayments and

Debtors

088 Contract

089 Houing and CTAX Support


091 IT


093 Council Tax

094 Financial Assessments


096 Benefits

097 Contract

098 Business Rates

099 Cashiers and Postal Services




103 Benefits

104 Benefits


106 Contract

107 Cashiers

108 Sundry Debtors

109 Sundry Debtors

Page 51

APPENDIX 1

Description of Change

Payroll Document Retention

New Homes Bonus - New ServiceCustomer Satisfaction Survey - Only complete years

2, 4 and 6SPD - Only complete years 1, 3, 5 and 7

Student Exemptions - Phone calls to Colleges /Uni's

Corporate Debt Onboarding

Cashiers Closing

Payslips not to be sent where self service is available

Additional leaflet to be included with new residents

CTAX bills

Level of Outstanding Work - To exclude documents

created by the ATLAS project

Academy Support

Mayoral Infrastructure Levy

Cemetries Invoices

RPIx agreement for April12-Mar13

Addional Cash Collections

Temporary Accomodation - Movement Trigger

Updates

Accounts Payable Onboarding

Customer Satisfaction Survey - Only complete years

4 and 6

Pension Contribution for Tuped staff

Charging Orders

Telephony Link beteen LBB and Liberata

Reduction in Pensions Payslips

Pensions Regulation Changes

Direct Payments Monitoring Backlog

Additional Debt Recovery

NHS Tupe

Revenues and Benefits Reform

Welfare Benefits Cap

Orpington BIDS

MIL - Revised Price 2013/14

CareLInk

Server Changes

Bromley Contract 2011 to 2020 Register

of Change Control Notices

Page 52

Council Tax Leaflet

SPD Review

Heywoods Altair Pensions System

Core Fee Discount 2013/14

Customer Services

Orpington BIDs - Target for 2013/14

Local Government Pension Changes 2014

RPIx agreement for April14-Mar15

Pension Contribution for Tuped staff (Revised)

NNDR Retail Relief

New Service - Financial Assessments

New Service - Appointee and Deputeeships

HMRC RTI Referrals

AP Increased Volumes

NNDR Reviews

Additional Debt Recovery - Domicilary Care

Additional Debt Recovery - Temporay Accomodation

Migrant Funding

Reduction in Schools Payslips

New Service - Statutory HR for Schools

New Service - Statutory Finance for Schools

New Service - HR, Finance and Audit

Software Licences

Changes to SLA/KPIs

Fraud and Error Incentive Service

6 Baseline reviews introduced

Pension Contributions for Tuped staff revised

Revised School number from 46 to 41

Extention of 2 CTAX Recovery Officers

HMRC RTI Referrals 2015/16

LOOMIS Core Fee 2015

Freedom Passes Services July 2015

Administrative Penalties

Registrars Cashiers Administration

CTAX Support Consultation

North Shoring

Cemetries Invoices Removed

NHS and Teachers Pensions Changes

Welfare Reform Contact Centre Resources

Page 53

LGPS Additional Resource

MIL Price amendment

Bromley BIDS

Interventions

Council Tax Support 2016/17

AP Volume Changes

Registrars Cashiers Administration

ACL Migration

Casper

Cash Collection - Fee Reduction

Netcall - Contract fee

Capita Connect

Ash

Mono Printing

RTI

Cost of Migration/Upgrades - Authority business only

Insight Implementation

Revenue Cheques to Fortnightly

CTS

Third Party Top ups

Capita Advantage

Benefits Outstanding Workload and Pending Targets

Mono Printing Revised

Liability change to occupier

Parking Service Removed

Payslip Reduction

Capita Advantage - Revision to CCN086

Netcall - Contract fee 17/18

Interventions 2016/18

RBI

Freedom Passes Volume Variation

RPIx 2017/20

LBB Post

Recovery Team Leader

Additial Temporary Accomodation

Page 54

ECHS VARIATIONS (CHANGE CONTROL) BY VALUE IN LAST TWELVE MONTHS

VARIATION (CHANGE CONTROL) TYPE DECISION MAKER

Extension Executive

Extension Executive

Extension Executive

Extension Care Services Portfolio Holder



Extension Executive



Growth Care Services Portfolio Holder

Growth Care Services Portfolio Holder

Growth Executive

Extension Executive

Extension Education, Children & Families Portfolio Holder

Extension Education, Children & Families Portfolio Holder

Extension Chief Officer


Growth Chief Officer



Growth Chief Officer





Page 55

DATE OF DECISION SERVICE

Jun-17

Support Living for Adults with Learning

Disabilities (5 Properties)

Jan-17

Community Wellbeing Services for Children and

Young People

Feb-17 Primary and Secondary Intervention Services

Jul-17 Tenancy Support Services for Homeless People

Jul-17


Disabilities (Padua Road)

Jul-17


Disabilities (Johnson Court)

Mar-17 School Capital Project

Jul-17


Disabilities (Brosse Way)

Jul-17


Disabilities (Bromley Road)

Jun-17 Nursing Beds Block Contract

Jun-17 Tenancy Support Services for Young People

Feb-17 Extra Care Housing

Nov-16 Carelink Services

Oct-16 Active Involvement SEN

Oct-16 Active Involvement SEN

Mar-17 Mosaic Software

Mar-17 SEN Dispute Resolution

Jun-17 Adult Education Eligiblity Checking

Nov-16 Data Capture Services

Apr-17 NHS Health Checks Training

May-17

Management Information System (Children and

Family Centres

Jan-17 Statutory Homelessness Reviews

Sep-17 Special Educational Needs Review

Apr-17 NHS Health Checks Pilot

Nov-16 Community Pharmacy Services

Page 56

PROVIDER

VALUE OF VARIATION

(CHANGE CONTROL)

£000

Avenues London 2934

Bromley Y 897

Multiple suppliers 437

Evolve Housing 395

Outward Housing 236

Sanctuary Home Care 225

Built Offsite 187

Avenues London 139

Outward Housing 139

Mission Care 135

DePaul 130

Sanctuary Home Care / Mears 73

Tunstall Healthcare 28

Advocacy for All 20

Bromley Parent Voice 15

Experian 13

Global Mediation 12

Software for Data Analysis 11

Panztel 10

Smart Health Solutions 5

Servelec 4

Independent Reviews Ltd 3

SEND4Change 0

Bromley GP Alliance 0

Pharmacies 0

Page 57

Appendix 2

COMMENTS

Formal extension option of two years


Six month extension to multiple suppliers (total cost £437k) to accommodate retendering

process


Formal extension option of one year


Two year extension to contract to continue temporary modular accommodation



Variation to contract to increase volume of Nursing Beds by 12 over the remaining duration

of the contract

Variation to contract to increase volume of beds available in provision

Variation to contract for rates increase

One year extension

One year extension

One year extension



One year extension and increase in scope

Nine month extension

One year extension applied

Increase in contract value to reflect inflationary uplifts over lifetime of contract

Three month extension

Increase in duration of contract (no increase in value or scope)

Increase in duration of contract (no increase in value or scope)

6 month extension

Page 58