Agenda item

The Council’s DMP, the Managing Director for BD Management Services and BD Service Delivery (MDBDM) and the Assistant Construction Director (ACD) for Be First delivered a presentation into how they worked with residents affected by Capital Works. 

The Chair questioned why resident satisfaction surveys completed following works were being returned to the contractors rather than to officers within Be First, as this may put residents off from lodging any issues. The ACD stated that this would be amended going forward as a result, with surveys either being returned to Be First or having an option to be sent back to Be First. The MDBDM stated that BD Services had their own Resident Liaison Officer (RLO) who carried out satisfaction surveys with the customer, who was independent from the contractor and any staff who were delivering the work. My Place also carried out their own spot checks and as such, did not just take the word of BD Services on feedback, adding a further level of scrutiny to the satisfaction results.

In response to a question, the DMP stated that they would share a clear ward-by-ward/block-by-block understandable explanation of what the Capital Works programme was with the Committee as soon as possible. Members also noted that whilst Be First was fairly good at sending Ward Members any letters that were due to be sent out to the local community regarding capital works, that sometimes Members received these with too short notice to amend these if necessary.

In response to several questions, the ACD stated that:

• Mistakes had been made historically but that both himself and other colleagues were actively working to improve capital works programmes;
• In relation to the recording of quality, the ACD had been asked to increase the level of Clerks of Works. He had one clerk of works out at the moment, with another two scheduled to join and that collectively they would be leading on the clerk of works process and providing feedback. The ACD’s team would also be going out to speak to residents, ensuring that they were happy with any work carried out and providing feedback;
• He had been given the lead for looking at all of the Be First Freedom of Information requests and complaints, so that he would be able to see these first hand and cross-reference these against the data that the contractors had been supplying;
• All Section 20 works went through a Section 20 framework. This was a historic framework that was due to end between April and May 2021. The team went out and priced quality and it was currently the case that contracts were awarded on a price-quality basis. Whilst historically, the Council was led by price, it was now the case that the winning contractor would not necessarily be providing the cheapest option as this would need to be weighed against the quality required. Once the winning contractor was awarded the contract, the figures that would come through for any capital works to be undertaken would be assessed by a Quantity Surveyor (QS). Be First had an external QS who would analyse the prices presented and would agree or disagree to these offering the best value. There would also be a secondary check from the Be First team, as well as a QS historically from the Council. The prices would therefore go through three rounds of checks before they were finalised and charged to the resident;
• In relation to the external work team, there was a project manager who adhered to the day-to-day running of the project, a clerk of works, a portfolio lead who oversaw the team, an appointed contract administrator and a QS. The contract was being monitored at project level by the project manager, the portfolio lead, the QS and the contract administrator. These four individuals would also hold daily conversations with My Place and the contractor, discussing the contract and its contents. The clerk of works would attend the site two or three times a week;
• He held weekly meetings with his portfolio leads to ascertain progress and performance and hear more about meetings that had been held with My Place colleagues and contractors. His team did a cash flow forecast, where they dealt with the QS and the QS’s expenditure from the contractor would be recorded. The ACD also had meetings with BDMS to discuss strategies and share information; and
• If a contractor fell short of delivery, the ACD would discuss this with the Managing Director of that contractor within a week and they would have meetings on site.