Measured Term Contracts - Good Value?

For a while now I've been wondering about the merits of using measured term contracts as the basis for procuring maintenance work. As a QS, I can see the benefits of having an agreed set of rates to cover the types of work likely to be required over the contract period - the contractor's QS measures and values, the client's QS checks. As the Meer Cats say, simples!

But hang on a minute, is that the best we can do in the 21st Century? Does the process of measuring and valuing really add any value to the client or does it just keep QSs gainfully employed? Oh dear, I can almost hear the sharp intakes of breath ... have I offered up the sacred cow?

On construction projects we have become familiar with cost plus arrangements so why can't we apply this methodology to maintenance work? We have the technology these days to be able to handle the large amounts of data that would need processing - operatives using handheld devices to record on / off site times, cost clerks coding and inputting invoices, use of online CAFM systems for managing workload and payments.

I can hear someone at the back saying "but if the contractor puts down that a job took 3 hours, how do we know that it actually did take 3 hours, or if it should have taken 2 hours?". Good question. Surely we could carry out sample audits to confirm that the resources being paid for have been used. Surely we could carry out annual benchmarking exercises to confirm that value for money is being delivered? Couldn't we use KPIs to incentivise improved performance? I'm sure it isn't beyond the wit of man to devise such checks and balances.

I'm convinced that a properly set up NEC3 Term Service Contract could deliver this, now I just need to convince a client to give it a go!!!