Meeting documents

Paragraph 3 - Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

Paragraph 3 - Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

 

The Committee considered the report which gave an indication of the impact of the Key Operating Targets (KOT) in year one of the joint waste service contract.  It highlighted which KOTs had been fully reported, which had not, and the reasons for this.  It also included potential actions needed in relation to improving the reporting of KOTs and calculation of payments.

 

The Committee also discussed the options for levying of KOTs:

·         To levy all potential point

·         To seek a monetary compromise

·         To seek an in kind or off set compromise

·         To levy no potential point

 

It was reported that the joint waste contract had 64 KOTs which ranged over a large number of areas.  The KOT document from the Contract was appended to the report at Appendix 1.  KOTs were reported in a variety of fashions:

·         A = 9 recorded through contract meeting -mainly related to the provision of day to day information ie. Provision off and work in accordance to a Health, Safety and Welfare Plan

·         B = 17 reported through Contender / StreetSmart - mainly elements related to contract from the public, or monitoring by waste team ie. missed collections

·         C = 21 reported through exception - those targets which are breached would need to be highlighted by either party ie. failure to comply with statutory Duty of Care requirements

·         D = 4 cleansing response times - targets based on completion within a timescale, dependant on area ie. failure to meet Zone 1 response times

·         E = 3 not reported - note reported as elements had been combined into reporting of the indicators due to the way contender is configured ie. missed collections Schedule 2 this is report in the other missed collection figures

·         F = 10 year 2 onwards - not reported until year 2 of the contract ie. failure to provide or agree crew / team communications

 

The Committee were advised of the process used based on small numbers of breaches, as in sections A and C but it was noted that there had been some difficulty in calculating some elements if the KOTs in their current form.  For example KOTs based in section B were recorded in higher numbers through logs on Contender and it had not been possible as yet to follow the above process through the section B KOTs.

 

The current Contender system had not been possible to build reports which reflected each of our 110,000 properties; the number of times individual properties may have been missed over six months.  The cost of manually calculating the information would be prohibitive and potentially could be subject to a high error rate.  The Committee considered the cost of the current process compared to possible alternative options.

 

An option to improve the reporting and levying of KOT points would be to amend the performance mechanism to reflect:

·         How the ‘contender’ database can report

·         What the waste team can effectively and efficiently report

·         An agreed aimed for yearly target

·         The current level of points for a breach

·         The current timescale before a breach

·         Minimal change in points levied for poor service

 

A potential option was to base KOTs on a three tier points level instead of an accumulation based on property, achieved by using the current target of below 400 containers missed a week or 1,200 containers a month, the following levels could be used for all containers missed a month, not just those not cleared within the timescale.

 

Options such as this could be looked at with Serco for the indicators in section B, to give an incentive to improve performance as well as penalising very poor performance.  It may also provide an opportunity to refocus the performance indicators to ensure penalties are applied in key priority areas (eg. Missed assisted collections).  A revision to the reporting process would be developed, and Serco would be consulted on the changes.  The Committee were to be kept up to date with progress on this.

 

RESOLVED -

 

That

 

a)    The provision KOT points allocation in section two was noted;

b)   The difference in KOT reporting method was noted; and

c)    A review be undertaken to stream line the KOT system to one which can be reported using the Councils current systems commenced with Serco