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!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Neil,
ReplyDeleteIn one sense, I agree with you, that it would be nice if there was a technological solution to it, however, I think there is a place for MTC's in a lot of situations. It brings an element of agility to the situation that might not otherwise be available, particularly, as you mentioned, if trust is a problem. The barriers to the types of systems you refer to are, for much of the construction supply chain (i.e. the 1 and 2 man band), prohibitively high. You effectively knock out the ability to sub this work, and then only large direct labour employing firms are able to do the work. In a way, while potentially improving the cost on some jobs, you also potentially reduce competition at the same time (a tricky conundrum)!
From a PM and Estates perspective, often the cost of lost productivity will be far greater than any gains made through a more job specific competition. MTC's offer us the rare ability to instruct now, and work out the cost later, knowing that the final measure gives us some assurance that we won't be taken to the cleaners for "emergency" or "last minute" instructions.
It is of course horses for courses, and I am sure though, as you say, with the right client and right supply chain (particularly on a large scale) it could be incredibly effective.
Adam Evans (Twitter @aaAdamEvans)