1 / 14

Version: For School's R e sources & Forum Date: January 2016

Initiation June 2015. Soft FM Procurement Plan Update for Schools. Commitment Early 2017. December 2015. Strategy January 2016. Version: For School's R e sources & Forum Date: January 2016. Contents . Review: Timescales and why we are proposing change to Date

nelsonjudy
Download Presentation

Version: For School's R e sources & Forum Date: January 2016

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Initiation June 2015 • Soft FM Procurement Plan • Update for Schools Commitment Early 2017 December 2015 Strategy January 2016 Version: For School's Resources & Forum Date: January 2016

  2. Contents • Review: Timescales and why we are proposing change to Date • Preferred Contracting Model • Scope of Services and Spend • Feedback from Schools and how we have used it • Feedback from Suppliers • Summary of Stakeholder consultation • Next steps….

  3. Timescales and why we are proposing change • Procurement approach is highly transactional, reactive and spend is fragmented across many frameworks, suppliers and contracts • Lack of volume leverage best price/performance • Mini-competitions are run by Procurement for individual schools and other entities with an element of FM advisory service • Inefficient use of time and effort • No SRM and virtually no Contract Management feasible • Post Contract care and MI could be better • The scope of Soft FM spend Category has never been defined in HCC • No complete ownership at a strategic level • No structured interface with Schools and other partners, outside the remit of County Supplies in terms of marketing and query handling • Looking to interface more of the service delivery through County Supplies platform • Take-up by schools is relatively low in relation to procurement effort • Looking to make the service more relevant and easy to use • Survey of what is possible June to October 2015 • Survey with Schools July 2015 • Soft Market testing Nov • 2015 • CS & Schools Engagement • (schools, governors, CS reps) Oct-Nov 2015 • Commit Detailed Options • and Draft Proposition to paper Dec • based on consultations 2015 • Senior Management sign-off • Baseline and Draft Proposition Dec 2015 • Update Schools Resources Jan • and Schools Forum 2016 • Commit Strategy to paper Jan based on consultations 2016 • Strategy to Senior Jan • Management 2016 • Update Schools Resources • and Schools Forum May 2016 • Update Schools Admin Conference June 2016 • Next generation contract commences mid 2017

  4. Preferred Strategic Partner Model • Predominant operating model emerging from reference site research, organisations wish for ease of managing this Category of routine since not core business and for prime contractors to handle the complexity of and supply chain for a range of disparate services • Supply market structured to provide ‘Total FM’ Hard and Soft and combined services • Steering Group of Key Stakeholders expressed consensus and overwhelming preference for SP model at Options Workshop Oct ‘15

  5. Soft FM Services in Scope & Spend Spend breakdown • …

  6. Feedback from Schools and how we have used it…. Procurement Support

  7. Feedback from Schools and how we used it….

  8. Feedback from Schools and how we have used it

  9. Feedback from Schools and how we have used it

  10. Summary of Stakeholder Communication

  11. Next Steps……. • Approval of the Strategy • Further Market Engagement with prospective suppliers • Further Stakeholder Engagement • Identify owners of the proposed contract and supplier relationship • Take the proposition to market early 2017 • Contract award and transition from existing to new contracts up to end 2017

  12. Annexes • Feedback from suppliers attending the Early Engagement Day: • Some attracted as Sub Contractors • Some attracted as Strategic Partners

  13. Feedback from Suppliers (1) Supply Chain/SME interest • How will we get paid on time? • How will we be able to access the business through an SP, how does the SP become aware of an SME’s service and ability? • Can we ensure that there are no barriers to the business such as high levels of insurance, financial thresholds etc? • Can we ensure that for the purposes of the exercise, we define SME correctly. Strategic partner interest • What percentage of SME involvement will be expected by HCC? • On Time Payment will be crucial • Sufficient Transformation Timelines (mobilisation) will also be crucial • Recognition of the need for a business continuity strategy • Could look at the SP as Managing Agent not a contractor • Total Asset Management approach is an option to consider • Will require a single point of contact as owner and a robust, competent Supplier Relationship Manager • How will the SP work alongside In-House services such as HC3S?

  14. Feedback from Suppliers (2) Success Factors • Increasing spend levels • SME relationship with SP and Clients • Working to SLA and KPIs • Robust Supplier Relationship Management Risks and Benefits • Mark up on Mark up • Make sure efficiency gains recognised and captured • Marketing to Clusters of clients • Transparency Savings achievable • Longer term contract, lower unit process costs • Widen client base to reduce unit process costs • Raise awareness to improve take up of service • Claims of 12 to 24% with a further 5% if BS11000 is employed

More Related