Agenda item

This report outlines a review of the current Highways service delivery contract, focusing on contractor performance as well as highlighting future procurement requirements.

Ian Hawthorn, Assistant Director Highways gave a presentation on a review of the current Highways service delivery contract. This focused on contractor performance as well as highlighting future procurement requirements. The presentation drew attention to the following:

• Hammersmith and Fulham Highway Assets
• RBKC Framework and x6 contract areas
• The key principle of the contract
• Contract Performance Management and Service Manager Dashboards
• Risks
• Future Contract 2026
• Key findings on the current highway contract market in London

With reference to the contract performance indicators, Councillor Adam Peter Lang noted that site health and safety inspection was rated as only satisfactory, and he hoped that in the new contact this could be improved upon as a priority. He also noted that respect for the environment only had a satisfactory rating and hoped this could be improved. On a positive note, he highlighted that asphalt resurfacing, pot-hole repairs and winter gritting were rated as good and he commended the respective teams for their work.

In terms of the future, Councillor Adam Peter Lang noted that the Authority had ruled out partnerships with other neighbouring boroughs, such as Westminster and would be bringing grounds maintenance and horticulture back in house. He also commented that the Council needed to be mindful of the length of the contracts it entered into.

Councillor Adam Peter Lang commented that whichever partner the Council entered into a contract with, it was important to enquire about their staffing, as employment rates were critical in all industries at the moment. He noted that ten years was a long time and asked whether the company had sufficient staff to meet the demands of the contract. He explained that he had posed the question of staffing and recruitment to Violia recently and had been assured that they could meet these targets.

In response, Ian Hawthorn confirmed that it was some of the smaller sites and the minor works which was where the issues were. Whereas the planned works where there were schemed works were excellent. Members were reassured to learn that Conway was held to account by the Council when it missed its targets on the smaller sites. In terms of recruitment within the industry, Ian Hawthorn provided details of his specific interest in the area and the importance of encouraging women to join the Highways Industry. In terms of pot-holes, Ian Hawthorn confirmed that Hammersmith and Fulham was second in London with the fewest number of pot-holes and he provided details of the monitoring work that was done to identify defects in road surfaces before they developed into pot-holes. He underlined the importance of the weather, its effect on roads and how a wet July 2023 had meant that pot-holes had begun to develop well before the usual ‘pot hole season’ of December and January. It was noted that the Council provided a 24/7 service from 1 October to the end of April, monitored the weather and despatched gritters as soon as low temperature thresholds were met.

With regards to long term contracts, Ian Hawthorn explained that the Council had surveyed all London Boroughs as well as some of adjacent counties, such as Essex, and long-term contracts were becoming the norm. He explained that inner London Boroughs suffered in terms of space for depots for contractors compared to outer London where there was more space and this also tended to shape the contract.

Councillor Jackie Borland asked for further details to be provided on why the Council had ruled out partnerships with another borough where there was an opportunity to save costs. In response, Ian Hawthorn confirmed that in the case of Westminster, it wanted to move faster than the Council did, as Hammersmith and Fulham wished to review how the works contract operated. He confirmed that as with all contracts, the devil was in the detail, and any decisions taken in haste could create a considerable amount of future work to recoup costs from contract specifications which were not robust enough. Ian Hawthorn confirmed that there were twenty thousand items in the new contract and this included a considerable amount of work in sustainability. Members noted that Council still worked closely with Westminster, but that in this instance, the Council had deliberately chosen to move more slowly so it could take more time to assess its options.

Councillor Jackie Borland highlighted the frustration felt by residents when highways and footways were repeatedly dug up on a regular basis. She enquired about what was being done to link utilities together so that multiple services could be repaired or laid at the same time to help minimise disruption. In response, Ian Hawthorn confirmed that one of his roles included leading the team for Network Management, so he co-ordinated those works.  He explained that a considerable amount of collaboration was done (including monthly meetings), so that when the Council did its planned maintenance programme, utilities were encouraged to contact the Council so that any works could be dovetailed where possible. It was noted that current legislation did allow utilities to go into works which had been completed by the Council, if for example, there was a need for emergency access (a burst pipe) or a new connection was required.

Councillor Ashok Patel noted that under asset type (on page 14) there was a reference to Hammersmith Bridge and he asked why this was. In response, Ian Hawthorn confirmed that the bridge was one of the few large structures in the borough and that was why it was highlighted. Councillor Ashok Patel asked why all the contracts had been awarded to FM Conway with the exception of drainage repairs which was won by Kappa. He asked if would be simpler if one contractor addressed all works. In response, Ian Hawthorn confirmed that FM Conways did not bid for the drainage repairs.

The Chair, Councillor Rory Vaughan, asked in terms of looking forwards and the new contract (implemented in 2026), what the next steps and timings were. And what consultation activity and the budget implications were likely to be. In response, Ian Hawthorn confirmed that the contract process had started and an external consultant would be leading the procurement process, which would involve a considerable amount of engagement and consultation, as the contract needed to be examined piece by piece. It was noted that the Council would be testing the market (for costs) as it was a named body within the TfL framework. Ian Hawthorn confirmed that in the current marketplace, there would be higher prices, but these had been taken into account as the Council tailored its work. New materials and technologies were also examined as possible ways of reducing costs. It was noted that a survey of the whole borough had recently been completed which highlighted there were many challenges. These included winding roads, Victorian infrastructure, the historical planting of footways and contacting neighbouring boroughs (to the contract) which would begin in the next few months. Ian Hawthorn confirmed he was Chair of the London Technical Advisory Group, so he represented all the other Highways Officers in London and co-Chaired this with TfL so he had a strong overview of where other boroughs were with their procurement. So, in summary, the Council was currently doing the preparatory work for the procurement and there were many challenges given the impacts arising from climate change.

Action: That Ian Hawthorn come back to Committee and provide a schedule of the procurement works in the near future.

The Chair commented that there were a considerable number of strategies within the Council that would be interwoven into this work such as the tree and SUDS strategies. The Chair asked how individual streets within highways were prioritised for maintenance, what reviews had been done on high carriage ways and gullies and how these plans were put together.

In response, Ian Hawthorn confirmed that a condition survey was done on every road which took on board comments from members of the public and Councillors. It was a case of finding the sweet spot of doing maintenance just before a road deteriorated and costs exponentially escalated. It was noted that all planned maintenance was done on a risk-based approach (risk, who used the asset, whether there were vulnerable users, resident feedback and complaints data). Ian Hawthorn confirmed that a considerable amount of a roads’ deterioration came from underneath the road. Details were provided on how roads were then assessed and graded for repair, as well as how the ‘reserve list’ of those roads awaiting repair also operated. Members noted that Highways were a dynamic asset as its condition was constantly changing and evolving over time.

The Chair highlighted that the condition of footway paving was an area of concern and asked what the timescale was to increase the percentage of these to a good standard (an 80% target). Adding a supplementary question, he asked what was being done to ensure temporary traffic lights (needed during the repair) were moved quickly on to the next job after the repair had been completed.

In response, Ian Hawthorn provided details of how complex footway repairs were, and how historically, the approach had changed over time. However, he confirmed that changes were underway to improve how these repairs were implemented. In terms of temporary traffic lights, he confirmed that these were monitored on a regular basis. If Councillors were aware these should have been moved, they were urged to contact Ian to expedite matters, as temporary lights needed to be moved as soon as possible. In terms of overall monitoring, it was noted that Council conducted 20,000 inspections a year on utilities work.

In relation to street lighting and electrical contracts, Councillor Ashok Patel asked why street lighting was described as only satisfactory – planned works not completed until March 2024. In response, Ian Hawthorn confirmed that this area was underperforming, the reasons why and the actions being taken to improve performance.

Concluding the item, the Chair confirmed that the Committee would like to revisit the topic in six months’ time in terms of looking at the new contract and in particular, the strategy in the next 10 years. It was noted that there was going to be a considerable amount of evolution in terms of climate change and those overlapping strategies.

Action – That the Committee revisit the Highways Contract in six months’ time to examine the new contract (as detailed above).

RESOLVED

1.    For the Committee to note and comment on the paper and  presentation.