Contract Maintenance Models

1. Contract Maintenance Models Trends and Options Presented by: Walter Rafin DTZ

2. Presentation Roadmap Maintenance Contract Model Options Facilities Management versus Facilities Maintenance Summary

3. Facilities Management versus Facilities Maintenance Facilities Management integrates all organisational processes, people and workplace. Includes property | space management, infrastructure, support services, administration and asset management Facilities Maintenance sustains building and asset performance to design intent, to increase reliability, reduce equipment degradation, and sustain energy efficiency, whilst maintaining mandatory compliance requirements. Facilities Management versus Facilities Maintenance

4. Preventative Maintenance Usually fixed PM fee Normally includes some corrective elements (e.g. coil cleaning) Too much Not usually inclusive of repair or reactive works Asset owner takes on almost all risk Too Little Results in too little or too much maintenance – unclear requirements Budgeting & cost control difficult

5. Inspection (or Reactive) Based ‘Fly-by’ inspections Usually fixed inspection fee Excludes any corrective elements (e.g. cleaning filters) Least effective? Not inclusive of repair or reactive works Reporting of issues only Usually least expensive option Least effective

6. End Results (or Reliability) Not yet widely used All or part risk transfer Risk based on defined end result requirement (e.g. comfort) END Payment based on results Usually tied to Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Difficult to define parameters

7. Comprehensive Fixed Fee all inclusive – budget certainty Full risk transfer to contractor Excludes capital replacement, refurbishment and/or rehabilitation RISK Labour Usually subject to condition assessment and latent conditions Parts Contractor manages risk via rigorous PM or not enough PM Significant administration savings

8. Semi-Comprehensive Inclusive of all labour only Fixed labour fee Normally excludes parts and materials 2nd most expensive model Works best for large sites or portfolios Labour only Budgeting can be difficult Less risk transferred to contractor

9. Repair Work Limit (RWL) • Research shows for M.E.F services: • 66% <$1000 • 20% rehab | refurb | capex & chargeable • 14% >$1000 & chargeable Repair Work Limit Most reactive calls minor Labour Materials Capped risk at predetermined/agreed threshold or ‘RWL’ Parts • Usually subject to condition • assessment and latent conditions Significant administration savings

10. Summary • Choose wisely and do your homework • Consider: • - Economic conditions and what you can afford • - Technical advances in mind the end result Keep • - Your portfolio condition • - Your risk profile • - Contract flexibility for change • - Performance management and reporting framework