Agenda item

To consider a report on the operation of the Council’s grounds maintenance service as a starting point for a detailed scrutiny review.

The Committee considered a report, set out at Agenda pages 49 to 54, which provide background information on the operation of the Council’s Grounds Maintenance contract. The report provided baseline information about the contract which provided a starting point for the Committee’s Scrutiny review.

 

Norman Jorgensen (Executive Member for Environment, Leisure and Libraries), Peter Baveystock (Service Manager, Cleaner, Greener and Reactive Highway Services) and Emma Pilgrim (Specialist, Place Clienting) attended the meeting to introduce the report and answer Member questions.

 

The report stated that the current Grounds Maintenance contract commenced in April 2016 following a joint procurement exercise with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. The contract was let to ISS Facility Services Landscaping and was subsequently taken on by Tivoli Group Ltd following a buy-out of ISS in 2018.

 

The report gave details of the scale of the contract which covered 4.4 million square metres of parks and verges across the Borough, over 50 sports pitches and over 100 play areas. The contract had a value of £809k and included a £40k performance bonus.

 

Following a public consultation in 2014 it was decided that the contract would move to an outcome/output specification which would offer more flexibility by moving away from a rigid maintenance programme.

 

The report also gave details of the performance indicators used to underpin the contract. These included inspection scores, stakeholder/customer satisfaction, sports user satisfaction, justified complaints, community involvement, staff development and the identification of new income streams. The report highlighted a failure in service delivery relating to grass cutting which had generated a significant number of complaints which peaked in mid-May 2018. Officers were working with the new Tivoli Area Manager to improve service performance. This had resulted in the deployment of extra resources at no additional cost to the Council.

 

In order to address the issues outlined in the report the Chairman had agreed a set of Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOEs) which comprised:

 

KLOE 1 – Grounds Maintenance Contract

 

Provide more details on the key terms of the Grounds Maintenance contract, including the terms of the output/outcome specification.

 

Explain how the contract is structured to deliver a more flexible approach to grass cutting.

 

In relation to the 2014 public consultation, provide a summary of the consultation process and a copy of the consultation outcomes report/decision sheet which sets out the rationale for moving to an output/outcome specification.

 

Explain how the £40k performance bonus is awarded and how it is linked to the performance management of the contract.

 

Explain how the contract is structured to enable input variations to ensure that the agreed outputs/outcomes are met.

 

KLOE 2 – Stakeholder Engagement

 

Provide evidence of progress against each of the six priorities identified in the report for the development of the contract.

 

KLOE 3 – Market Engagement

 

Explain the contract specification variations between WBC and RBWM.

 

Provide details of any working relationship between the two boroughs in relation to the management of the grounds maintenance contracts.

 

Provide details of any feedback on the operation of the grounds maintenance contract at RBWM including the level of complaints received in May/June 2018.

 

KLOE 4 – Scope of Tendered Services

 

Provide more details of the operation of the CRM Dynamics system, including involvement of the contractor and examples of responses provided to residents.

 

KLOE 5 – Performance Management

 

Provide performance management data for each of the Key Performance Indicators and Management Performance Indicators for 2016/17, 2017/18 and the first quarter of 2018/19.

 

The report gives details of areas where there has been good performance including partnership working, community engagement, staff training and biodiversity. Provide evidence of good performance in these areas.

 

The report also states that improvement has been required for justified complaints and sports surfacing, with some KPIs out of scope or under development. Explain the process for delivering improvements in relation to justified complaints and sports surfacing. Explain the reference to KPIs out of scope or under development.

 

Provide details of benchmarking undertaken in relation to the service and lessons learnt from best practice in other parts of the country.

 

KLOE 6 – Contract Performance, Customer Feedback and Complaints

 

 

The report states that, in the current contract year, there has been a failure in service delivery relating to grass cutting which has resulted in a number of complaints registered on the CRM Dynamics system.

 

Explain the process for identifying the failure in service delivery and the steps taken to address this issue with the contractor.

 

Provide details of the number, type and geographical location of complaints received in the first quarter of 2018/19 compared to 2016/17 and 2017/18.

 

Explain how the service issues were communicated to residents, Town and Parish Councils, community groups and other stakeholders.

 

 KLOE 7 – Next Steps

 

Explain how the Council is working with the contractor and the level of additional resources identified in order to achieve the agreed standards.

 

The report identifies further areas where WBC is seeking to work with the contractor:

 

·           Looking at introducing some online grass cutting information to provide residents with clear expectations;

·           Improving customer engagement using the CRM Dynamics system, keeping residents updated on the progress of their reports;

·           Agreeing the resource and machinery level for the current contract to make sure that the service provided is sustainable;

·           Working to introduce more areas of long grass and wildflowers at appropriate locations.

 

Give details of progress in each of these areas.

 

Explain how the Council’s 21^st Century Council programme is being utilised to deliver improvements in communication, engagement, complaints handling and the overall customer experience.

 

Explain how the development of Locality services will deliver improved engagement and performance management of the contract.

 

Explain the consultation process to be used for service changes such as the introduction of additional long grass areas.

 

In the ensuing discussion Members raised the following points:

 

What were the specific issues in the spring/early summer which led to the reported problems with the contract and the large number of customer complaints? It was confirmed that, in relation to grass cutting, the first cut is the deepest and this year it took 6 to 7 weeks to complete the first cut rather than 4 to 5 weeks in a typical year. It was apparent that, in addition to the challenging weather conditions in the spring, the contractor did not deploy the anticipated level of resources. It was also apparent that some parts of the Borough were affected more than others. For example, the areas which were cut first, including Earley, were not subject to many complaints and, indeed, received positive feedback.

 

In relation to performance monitoring of the contract, what was the inspection process? It was confirmed that 60 officer inspections took place each quarter with a pass rate of 80% satisfaction. Failure to reach the required standard had a financial impact on the contractor’s bonus payments.

 

As the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM) were using the same contractor, were similar problems experienced in relation to this year’s performance? It was confirmed that RBWM had experienced similar problems and had held discussions with senior management from the contractor. The key issue was the flexibility to deploy additional resources at the height of the grass growing season.

 

As the contract was output/outcome based, what measures were used to determine when grass should be cut. It was confirmed that in relation to frequently cut grass, it should be no higher than five inches. Part of the problem was that when the contractor responded to complaints and brought in grass cutting machinery at short notice, work such as strimming and verge maintenance could not be completed at the same time. The result was that areas looked unfinished and scruffy.

 

In relation to complaints/customer feedback, was the Council able to analyse the data to highlight the type/volume of complaints in different parts of the Borough? It was confirmed that the Dynamics system was implemented part way through the year, so it was not possible to provide detailed year-on-year comparative data. However, the system would provide more comparative data as it became fully embedded.

 

In relation to biodiversity, was the Council striking the correct balance between its positive biodiversity targets and the negative feedback from potentially small numbers of local residents? It was confirmed that the Council tried to strike a balance on this issue. It was important to win “hearts and minds” on the biodiversity agenda. The Council also need to communicate more effectively with residents about the designated areas where grass would be allowed to grow.

 

In relation to the development of new income streams, what had been achieved to date? It was confirmed that the contractor had worked with Town and Parish Councils, schools, etc to identify additional work. In these circumstances the Council received a financial benefit.

 

In relation to the areas of longer grass, how could the Council improve communication with the contractor, residents, Towns and Parishes and community groups? It was confirmed that the Council’s new mapping system, when fully operational, would provide better information to the contractor on the biodiversity areas. The Council did consult with Town and Parish Councils and had developed its campaign for a cleaner and greener environment. Improved mapping would also assist in improving communications with local residents.

 

In relation to next steps, what measures were under consideration to improve the delivery of the grass cutting service. Peter Bavystock reported that Officers would be considering the key lines of enquiry and compiling evidence for the next meeting of the Committee. Discussions were ongoing with Tivoli about the resourcing of the contract and measures to improve the customer experience using feedback from the Dynamics system. It was also felt that the development of Locality Services through the 21^st Century Council programme would provide more proactive community engagement and more opportunities to discuss service issues with local stakeholders.

 

RESOLVED That:

 

1)    Norman Jorgensen, Peter Baveystock and Emma Pilgrim be thanked for attending the meeting to present the report and answer Member questions;

 

2)    Officers attend the next meeting of the Committee on 19 September 2018, to provide more detailed responses and evidence in relation to the key lines of enquiry and Member issues raised at the meeting;

 

3)    a representative of Tivoli Group Ltd be invited to attend the meeting on 19 September 2018;

 

4)    a site visit be arranged for Members to see the operational issues under consideration as part of the Scrutiny review.