sdclogo

 

 

Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of the Services and Assets Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 9 August 2017

9am

Council Chambers

15 Forth Street, Invercargill

 

Services and Assets Committee Agenda

 

OPEN

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Brian Dillon

 

 

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Councillors

Stuart Baird

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

Nick Perham

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Group Manager Services and Assets

Ian Marshall

 

Committee Advisor

Kirsten Hicks

 

 

 

 

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 


 

 Terms of Reference – Services and Assets Committee

 

The Services and Assets Committee is responsible for overseeing the following Council activities:

·                  

 

 

Transport;

·                 Property management including community facilities, acquisitions and disposals (including land dealings);

·                 Forestry;

·                 Water supply, wastewater and stormwater;

·                 Solid waste management;

·                 Flood protection;

·                 Waste management;

·                 Rural fire management;

·                 Te Anau Airport;

·                 Stewart Island Jetties and Riverton Harbour Committee;

·                 Water supply schemes.

 

The Services and Assets Committee shall have the following delegated powers and be accountable to Council for the exercising of these powers:

 

(a)       Monitoring the delivery of capital works projects and the implementation of the capital works programme.

(b)       Monitoring the delivery of operations and maintenance contracts.

(c)       To approve and/or assign all contracts for work, services or supplies where the value is in excess of $200,000 where those contracts relate to work within approved estimates.  Where the value of the work, services; supplies or business case or the value over the term of the contract is estimated to exceed $2M a prior review and recommendation of the business case by the Finance and Audit Committee is required.  The business case shall include as a minimum; risk assessment, a procurement plan and financial costings.

(d)       To monitor the return on all the Council’s investments including forestry;

(e)       To monitor and track Council contracts and compliance with contractual specifications.

 

The Services and Assets Committee is responsible for considering and making recommendations to Council regarding:

(a)          Policies relating to the scope of activities of the Services and Assets Committee;

(b)          Changes to Council’s adopted Levels of Service;

(c)          The dividend from the Forestry Business Unit.

 

The Services and Assets Committee may delegate the management and control of all Riverton harbour assets vested in the Southland District Council to the Riverton Harbour Committee.

 

The Services and Assets Committee may delegate the responsibility to oversee the development and maintenance of jetties located at Fred’s Camp, Millars Beach,  Ulva Island, Port William and Little Glory Cove to the Stewart Island Jetties Subcommittee.

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

sdclogo

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                                   PAGE

Procedural

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        4

2          Leave of absence                                                                                                           4

3          Conflict of Interest                                                                                                         4

4          Public Forum                                                                                                                  4

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                          4

6          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               4

Reports for Resolution

7.1       District Wide LED Streetlight Replacement                                                             13

7.2       Professional Services Contract for Transport Core Service                                 27

Reports for Recommendation

8.1       Contract 17/5 Mackinnon Loop Watermain Renewal                                              33

Reports

9.1       IFS Growth Forest Manager's Report of Forestry Activity for the period to 30 June 2017                                                                                                                               39

9.2       Downer Water and Wastewater Maintenance Contract 10/01 - Monthly Report for June 2017                                                                                                                      53

9.3       Roading Operations June 2017                                                                                  57

9.4       NZTA Three Year Programme Performance                                                            77

9.5       Services and Assets Contracts Update                                                                    83

9.6       Work Schemes Survey                                                                                                85

  


 

1          Apologies

 

Cr Bruce Ford

Cr Neil Paterson

 

2          Leave of absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

3          Conflict of Interest

 

Committee Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4          Public Forum

Notification to speak is required by 5pm at least two days before the meeting. Further information is available on www.southlanddc.govt.nz or phoning 0800 732 732.

 

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items

To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the committee to consider any further items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.

Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:

(i)         the reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and

(ii)        the reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a)       that item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i)         that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)          no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

6          Confirmation of Minutes

6.1         Meeting minutes of Services and Assets Committee, 21 June 2017

 

 


 


sdclogo

 

 

Services and Assets Committee

 

OPEN MINUTES

 

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of Services and Assets Committee held in the Council Chambers, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 9.04am.

 

present

 

Chairperson

Brian Dillon

Councillors

Stuart Baird

 

John Douglas

 

Bruce Ford (9.48am – 11am, 11.03am – 11.12am)

 

Darren Frazer

 

George Harpur

 

Gavin Macpherson

 

Neil Paterson

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Group Manager Services and Assets

Ian Marshall

Group Manager, Community and Futures

Rex Capil

Group Manager, Environmental Services

Bruce Halligan

Communications Manager

Louise Pagan

Governance and Democracy Manager

Clare Sullivan

Committee Advisor

Fiona Dunlop

 

 

 


1          Apologies

 

Apologies for absence were received from Mayor Tong, Councillors Duffy, Keast, Kremer and Perham.

 

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Ford.

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Paterson, seconded Cr Frazer and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee accept the apologies.

 

 

2          Leave of absence

 

There were no requests for leave of absence.

 

 

3          Conflict of Interest

 

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

 

 

4          Public Forum

 

Jim Hargest (Chair) Greg Buzzard and Allan Beck - Southland Warm Homes Trust Representatives addressed the meeting regarding the Trusts Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2016.

 

 

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items

 

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

 

 

6          Confirmation of Minutes

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Macpherson, seconded Cr Frazer and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee confirms the minutes of meeting held on 5 April 2017 as a true and accurate record of that meeting.

 

Reports for Resolution

 

 

7.1

New Professional Services Contract

Record No:         R/17/6/12143

 

Roading Asset Management Engineer – Hartley Hare, Commercial Lead Roading – Dylan Rabbidge and Strategic Manager Transport – Joe Bourque were in attendance for this item.

 

 

The Officers advised that the purpose of the report was to outline the proposed procurement strategy for Southland District Council Transport Professional Services and seeks affirmation from the Services and Asset Committee for the procurement of this services.

The Meeting noted that the report covered the Transport Professional Services requirements and outlined the proposed procurement methodology of these services and also the technical, specialised and support services for the Council’s Transport activity.

(During discussion on the report Councillor Ford joined the meeting at 9.48am.)

 

Moved Councillor Douglas, seconded Councillor Paterson, the following motion with an amendment to recommendation e (as indicated):

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “New Professional Services Contract” dated 13 June 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Approves the procurement of Transport Professional Services.

e)         Endorse that delegation be provided to the Chief Executive to award the contract based on an estimated tender value of $1.950million subject to the matter being considered by the Finance and Audit Committee prior to letting.

 

The motion was put and declared LOST on a show of hands (2:5).

Councillor Dillon abstained from voting.

 

The recommendations contained in the officers report were then put.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Baird, seconded Cr Macpherson

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “New Professional Services Contract” dated 13 June 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Approves the procurement of Transport Professional Services.

e)         Endorse that delegation be provided to the Chief Executive to award the contract based on an estimated tender value of $1.950million.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED on a show of hands (5:2).

Councillor Dillon abstained from voting.

 

 

Reports

 

 

8.1

Forestry Operations - Financial Report to 31 March 2017

Record No:         R/17/5/11530

 

IFS Growth Forest Manager – Reece McKenzie and Group Manager, Services and Assets – Ian Marshall were in attendance for this item.

 

Mr McKenzie advised that the report to the Committee was up to 31 March 2017.  Forestry activity is gaining momentum with a strong finish expected for the year.  This past period has seen the start of the main harvest program in Dipton Forest, with production in excess of 10,000 tonnes per month.  The annual harvest target this year is 46,000, with 45% cut so far.

 

The Committee noted that the year to date position reflects a surplus of $907,000 and that the expected the net surplus at year end will be $2.1million, compared to a budget of $813,000.  This $1.3million variation is reflective of stronger log prices.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Harpur, seconded Cr Paterson and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Forestry Operations - Financial Report to 31 March 2017” dated 13 June 2017.

 

 

8.2

Downer Water and Wastewater Maintenance Contract 10/01 - Monthly Report for April 2017

Record No:         R/17/5/11529

 

Operations Manager, Water and Waste Services – Bill Witham and Group Manager, Services and Assets – Ian Marshall were in attendance for this item.

 

Mr Witham advised that the purpose of the report was to update the Committee on the progress of the contract 10/01 for delivery of water and wastewater services to Council for the Southland District. 

 

 

The Meeting noted that the contract was awarded in 2010 for a maximum period of 12 years.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Macpherson, seconded Cr Frazer and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Downer Water and Wastewater Maintenance Contract 10/01 - Monthly Report for April 2017” dated 13 June 2017.

 

 

8.3

Roading Operations May 2017

Record No:         R/17/4/8728

 

Roading Asset Management Engineer – Hartley Hare and Commercial Lead Roading – Dylan Rabbidge were in attendance for this item.

 

Officers advised that the purpose of the report was to update the Committee on the progress of the major roading maintenance and capital contracts. 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Paterson, seconded Cr Ford and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Roading Operations May 2017” dated 13 June 2017.

 

 

8.4

Services and Assets Contracts Update

Record No:         R/17/6/12625

 

Group Manager, Services and Assets – Ian Marshall were in attendance for this item.

 

Mr Marshall advised that the purpose of the report was to update the Committee on the progress on the status of all Contracts within Services and Assets Department except where the Water and Waste and Roading opex and capex contracts are reported through their respective operations reports.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Ford, seconded Cr Macpherson and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Services and Assets Contracts Update” dated 13 June 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Excluded

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

Resolution

Moved Cr Douglas, seconded Chairperson Dillon and resolved:

That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

C9.1 Southland District Council Resurfacing Programme

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

Southland District Council Resurfacing Programme

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists.

 

That the Group Manager, Community and Futures, Group Manager – Services and Assets, Communications Manager, Group Manager, Environmental Services, Governance and Democracy Manager, Committee Advisor, Commercial Lead Roading and Roading Asset Management Engineer be permitted to remain at this meeting, after the public has been excluded, because of their knowledge of the items C9.1 Southland District Council Resurfacing Programme. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the matters to be discussed, is relevant to those matters because of their knowledge on the issues discussed and meeting procedure.

 

 

The public were excluded at 10.50am.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 11am and reconvened at 11.03am.

 

 

Resolutions in relation to the confidential items are recorded in the confidential section of these minutes and are not publicly available unless released here.

 

 


 

 

 

The meeting concluded at 11.12am.             CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Services and Assets Committee HELD ON WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE 2017.

 

 

 

DATE:...................................................................

 

 

 

CHAIRPERSON:...................................................

 


Services and Assets Committee

9 August 2017

sdclogo

 

District Wide LED Streetlight Replacement

Record No:        R/17/7/16806

Author:                 Hartley Hare, Roading Asset Management Engineer

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        To outline to the Services and Assets Committee, the approach to procurement and installation of LED street lighting units across the Southland District Council street lighting network.

Executive Summary

2        This report outlines the approach to procurement and installation of LED street lighting units across the Southland District that will be tendered.

3        The upgrade is required to replace outdated street lighting units to modern LED lights with significantly improved efficiencies and safety.

4        Endorsement is sought from the Services and Assets Committee for procurement and award of a contract to suitably qualified suppliers.

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “District Wide LED Streetlight Replacement” dated 2 August 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Resolve that upgrade programme for LED be accelerated to maximise NZTA funding assistance for this activity (85%).

e)         Resolve that a tender be put to market for the instillation of the LED lights.

f)          Endorse that the outstanding quantity of light units be purchased from Council’s previously approved suppliers.

g)         Approve delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer or Group Manager Services and Assets, to award contracts based on the estimated project value of $1M, subject to satisfactory tenders being received that provide value to the Southland District Council.

 


 

Content

Background

5        The Southland District Council’s Strategic Transport Department have investigated the benefits of moving to LED street lights to replace Council’s current High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lights.

6        There has been a push from Central Government for Local Authorities to convert street lighting networks to LED, and to date there has been significant upgrades happening all over New Zealand.

7        There are significant financial benefits by converting to an LED street lighting network, namely via reduced power consumption and reduced maintenance efficiencies that can be gained.

8        Council’s current HPS lights have a maximum bulb life of around 4 years, in comparison a LED light has a warranty of 10 years and an expected life of 20 years.  LED lights also operate on significantly less power consumption, where a typical 70 watt HPS on the network can now be reduced to a 27 watt LED lighting unit for a similar level of service.

9        In 2016, the Waitaki District Council (WDC) approached the Strategic Transport Department to see if Council was interested in forming a buying group to procure the supply of the new LED lighting units.  Essentially, buying in larger numbers to reduce costs for both parties.

10      A report was put forward and approved previously by the Activities Performance and Audit Committee (APAC) to enter into this buying group with WDC.  As a result, SDC purchased approximately 700 LED streetlighting units, and to date Wallacetown has been retrofitted.

11      The reason for slow progress is due to a change in the NZTA Funding Assistance Rate (FAR), where originally only 53% subsidy was available there is now an 85% subsidy available.  The Strategic Transport Department held off completing significant works until this higher subsidy could be confirmed.

12      As a result of the increased subsidy, the Strategic Transport Department are proposing to let a tender to install lights across the entire district.  Previously, (under the lower subsidy rate) Council proposed to retrofit the District over three phases to spread the cost and complete this work as minor improvement projects.

Issues

13      While there may be some minor issues associated with retrofitting LED streetlights on the network, these issues are not deemed to be significant.

14      Recently, Council retrofitted the Wallacetown Township to LED street lighting units and found only minor issues during this process.

15      It is worth noting that the Council have a small number of decorative (also referred to as heritage) street lighting units across the District, there is currently no cost effective LED replacement on the market for these existing lights.

16      It is the Strategic Transport’s Department intention to let a separate procurement and installation contract in future when cost effective options are available.  There will be no decorative/heritage light fittings replaced in this tender.

17      As part of the original buying group, a tender document and specification was put together by Opus to meet both Southland and Waitaki District’s specific needs, a tender review was undertaken by an Opus streetlighting specialist who is NZTA approved in procurement. SDC also had staff members involved as part of the tender review team.

18      There is always a risk that greater technology may come to fruition, however worldwide LED street lighting is being embraced on a very large scale with no apparent competition from alternative options.

19      In New Zealand, all large councils are being converted to LED and this is now flowing down to smaller cities and districts nationwide.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

20      No unusual legal or statutory considerations are involved with the procurement and installation of LED lighting units.

Community Views

21      Although no community views have been sought on this topic, the Strategic Transport Department ran an Investment Logic Mapping (ILM) sessions in 2015 where some Councillors and community organisations were present to discuss the benefits of moving to an LED street lighting network.

22      The proposed LED street lighting replacement aligns well with key messages formed within the Long Term Plan Community Outcomes, such as:

·              Deliver our own services and activities in a sustainable manner.

·              Support initiatives which reduce impacts on the environment.

·              Ensure that infrastructure and services are provided and maintained consistent with community needs and provide value for money in a sustainable manner.

·              Look for opportunities to increase value of our services.

Costs and Funding

23      The Strategic Transport Department estimate the cost to replace the existing HPS street lights to LED will be $1.0M.

24      NZTA are offering a FAR of 85% for Local Authorities to retrofit their existing networks to LED by 30 June 2018. This exposes Council to cover the remaining 15% (approximately $150,000).

25      A business case to complete this work has been submitted and approved by NZTA to retrofit the network to LED street lights. The Strategic Transport Department are confident this allows enough time to retrofit our network of around 2000 light units.

Policy Implications

26      There are no substantive Policy or District Plan considerations relevant to this matter but this process is subject to the following:

•        Council’s Procurement Policy.

•        Council’s NZTA Procurement Strategy.

27      The NZTA tender evaluation process will be followed along with Council’s Procurement Policy.

Analysis

Options Considered

28      Options considered for the retrofitting to LED Street Lights include:

•        Option 1 - Retrofit current HPS street lights to LED street lights.

•        Option 2 - Do nothing, leave network as HPS street lights.

29      Options considered for procurement include:

•        Option 1 - Lowest price conforming.

•        Option 2 - Price quality.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Retrofit Current HPS Street Lights to LED Street Lights

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Significant power consumption efficiencies gained by LED lighting.

·        Significant maintenance efficiencies gained by LED lighting, bulbs last much longer and reduced inspections required.

·        Levels of service remain largely unchanged, but significant efficiencies gained.

·        As an example, less power demand on Stewart Island power scheme as street lighting network converted to LED, so there will be at a reduced consumption requirement on this power supply network.

·        Although there is an initial cost to purchase an LED unit, they typically pay themselves off over a seven year period due to maintenance and power savings, three years before the warranty expires (and with an expected remaining life of around 13 years).

·        Significantly reduced street light maintenance contract moving into the future, LEDs don’t have the labour requirements HPS lights require.

 

 

 

·        Old HPS street light units are fully recyclable, but only have a value of around $1.00 each.  They can also be safely disposed of at a standard landfill.

·        Up front capital cost to purchase the new lighting units.

·        No use for old HPS unit, they hold no value to on-sell.

Option 2 - Do nothing, leave network as HPS Street Lights

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        No initial capital cost in purchasing of LED units.

·        No maintenance efficiencies gained, as HPS lights require more frequent bulb replacement and attendance.

·        HPS lights need regular and ongoing inspections due to short bulb life.

·        No power consumption saving efficiencies gained, as LED use significantly less power to operate.

·        As LED becomes the new normal, HPS equipment will be hard to source (if at all, in future).

·        A HPS unit may use up to 6 bulbs when compared to the expected life of an LED, which equals almost double the initial cost of an LED unit (excludes the labour cost to physically change each bulb).

Option 1 - Lowest Price Confirming

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Quicker to evaluate as only the lowest price tender is assessed to confirm conformance to the tender requirements

·        Reduced evaluation time and cost

·       Does not take account of non-price attributes.

·       Makes no allowance for potential added value that tenderers may offer.

Option 2 - Price Quality

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Focus is on both price and quality.

·        Non price attributes are considered and assessed as part of the tendering process.

·        Can allow for ‘added value’ of a proposal to be considered.

·        Requires a longer timeframe to evaluate as all tender proposals need to be reviewed and assessed.

Assessment of Significance

30      The tender for the procurement and installation of these street light units to upgrade the network is not considered significant.

Recommended Option

31      The Strategic Transport Department recommends that the District wide replacement of streetlights to LED is approved for tender, as they offer the best value for money to Council.

32      It is also recommended that the contract procurement method is lowest price conforming due to the simplistic nature of the retrofitting works proposed.

Next Steps

33      Services and Assets Committee endorse procurement and installation to retrofit the Southland District’s streetlighting network.

34      Tender documents finalised and Tender Let for the installation of LED lights - August 2017.

35      Tender Close and awarded to successful supplier - October 2017.

36      LED Street lights supplied - mid to late 2017 (approximately 900 available already of the required 2000).

37      Entire Southland District streetlighting network to be retrofitted by 30 June 2018.

 

Attachments

a         Southland District Council LED Streetlighting Upgrade Business Case    

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                          

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


 


 


 


 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


Services and Assets Committee

9 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Professional Services Contract for Transport Core Service

Record No:        R/17/7/16980

Author:                 Hartley Hare, Roading Asset Management Engineer

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        This report outlines the outcome of the procurement of the Southland District Council Transport Professional Services – Core Services tender contract 17/04.

Executive Summary

2        The current contract for the provision of Professional Services for Roading, Contract 12/03 expires on 30 September 2017.  The incumbent is Stantec (ex MWH Global).

3        Tenders were called in June and closed on 6 July 2017.  Tenders were received from Stantec and from Opus.

4        The tender proposals have now been evaluated in accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy and the provisions of the Request for Tenders (RFT).  This report presents the outcome of the evaluations.

5        The two tenders were initially checked for compliance with the provisions of the RFT and both were assessed as being acceptable for the purposes of evaluation.

6        The tenders were evaluated using an NZTA approved Price Quality Method which takes both non-price attributes and price into account.  The Evaluation Team (ET) comprised three Council officers and a highly experienced independent chair.

7        The outcome of the evaluation is that Opus is the highest ranked tenderer and the ET recommends Contract No.17/04,  Opus International Consultants.

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Professional Services Contract for Transport Core Service” dated 2 August 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Notes the outcome of the tender evaluation and endorses the awarding of Contract 17/04 for Professional Services for Transport Core Services to Opus.

 


 

Content

Background

8        The current contract held by Stantec (previously MWH Global) for Professional Services for Roading, Contract 12/03 expires on 30 September 2017.

 

9        The scope of the professional services contracts was reviewed prior to going to the market.  The purpose of the review was to improve flexibility and the range and capacity of resources available to Council to enable higher outputs to fully meet Council’s programme of work and to also recognise some extended scope of the three new Maintenance Alliances which was an outcome of the “Roading Service Delivery Review” undertaken in 2015.  This has resulted in the services being divided into three packages being:

 

·                      Core Services - comprising technical advice and professional support for Transport’s asset management, pavement renewals capital works and reseal programmes, management of sealing contracts, maintenance intervention strategies, network controls and network safety.

 

·                      Structural Engineering Services - comprising specialist technical advice and asset management support regarding Council’s stock of (circa) 1000 bridges and other structures, renewals programming and design and delivery management of the bridge renewal programme.

 

·                      A small panel of pre-qualified consultants to competitively undertake Pavement Renewal Projects (design and contract management).

 

10      The Transport Core Services is the subject of the tenders under consideration in this report.  The Structural Engineering Services are currently being separately tendered and will be reported to Council when evaluated and the invitation to pre-qualify for Pavement Renewal Projects is about to be issued.

 

11      Tenders were called in June and closed on 6 July 2017 for a three year initial term with two possible extensions of one year each subject to performance and Council’s discretion.  Two tenders were received, from Stantec and from Opus.

12      The two tenders were initially checked for compliance with the provisions of the RFT and both were assessed as being acceptable for the purposes of evaluation. Two matters were noted in the compliance check that required consideration by the ET.

13      Firstly, the body of the Opus tender exceeded the maximum page limit by two pages and the Chair advised the ET that the material on the excess pages was not to be taken into account in accordance with the provisions of the RFT.

14      Secondly, the Stantec tender was tagged to request a change in the way escalation of prices would be adjusted based on actual movement in wages as opposed to the RFT provisions which tied escalation to an index published by Statistics NZ.  Stantec were requested to withdraw the tag and if they so wished to adjust their price accordingly.  Stantec subsequently withdrew the tag and confirmed their price unchanged.


 

15      The RFT set out the basis on which the successful tender would be selected using a NZTA standard Price Quality Method which is well recognised within the industry.  The method requires the evaluation of non-price related attributes and determination of a Supplier Quality Premium that the Council would be prepared to pay to secure tenders that are higher ranked based on the non-price assessment.  When this has been determined the price files for each tender is opened and the Supplier Quality Premium deducted from the tender price of the higher ranked tenderers.  In this case there were only two tenderers.

 

16      Evaluation of the non-price attributes was individually done by the members of the ET and then moderated through debate in a meeting to achieve a consensus score for each attribute which was then weighted as per the table below to yield a ranking of the tenders.

 


Attribute

Weighting

Relevant experience and track record

20%

Technical skills and management skills

20%

Methodology

40%

Health and safety

Pass/Fail

Insurance

Pass/Fail

Price

20%

 

17      The Evaluation Team (ET), formed to evaluate tenders and recommend the preferred tender to Council comprised:

 

Evaluation Team

Doug Low, Morrison Low (Chair)

Joe Bourque, Southland District Council

Hartley Hare, Southland District Council

Dylan Rabbidge, Southland District Council

 

 

18      The Non-Price evaluation was supported by referee checks using referees nominated in the tenders.  It is noted that both tenderers are well established over a long period in Southland and are well known to Council.  They are both familiar with network issues and have both recently undertaken work for the Transport Team.  The non-price moderated scores are set out below.  Both tenderers satisfied the Health and Safety and Insurance requirements.

 

 

 

Opus

 

Stantec

 

Weight %

Consensus

Score

Weighted Score

 

Consensus

Score

Weighted Score

Experience & Track Record

20

82.5

16.5

 

79.75

15.95

Technical & Management Skills

20

81.0

16.2

 

80.5

16.1

Methodology

 

40

79.0

31.6

 

76.25

30.5

Total Non-Price Weighted Score

 

 

64.3

 

 

62.55

 

19      The non-price weighted scoring established a lead by Opus of 1.75% and this is known as the “Weighted Sum Margin” to be used in the formula below.

 

20      The RFT had provided an indicative budget estimate for the core services being bid of $650k per year.  The tender amounts were for the three year initial term of the contract yielding and estimate of $1,950k for the term.  This estimate was used to calculate the Supplier Quality Premium according to the formula:

 

SQP = Contract Estimate x weighted sum margin ÷ Price Weight

          = $1,950,000 x 1.75% ÷ 20%

          = $170,625 which is 8.75% of the estimate.

 

21      The recognised formula is intended to provide a guide on the Supplier Quality Premium and can be moderated.  It was considered by the ET that the premium was excessive and should be moderated down to 5% of the estimate being $97.5k.  In other words this is the amount that could be deducted from the Opus core service price before comparing it to the Stantec price to determine which would be the successful tenderer.

 

22      At this point the price files that had been locked down and password protected were opened yielding the following results.

 

 

Opus

Stantec

Total Core Services Tender Price

 

$1,943,520

$2,112,500

Less Supplier Quality Premium for Opus

$97,500

 

Adjusted Price for tender comparison

 

$1,846,020

$2,112,500

 

23      The outcome favours Opus as the preferred tenderer.  It is noted that the application of the Supplier Quality Premium was not required to achieve this result due to the very competitive price submitted by Opus which was within 0.3% of the estimate.

 

24      It is noted that tenderers were also invited to provide hourly rates to be used as the basis for pricing of any work that was allied to but outside of the prescribed scope of the Core Services.  This was to provide for flexibility in the contract for (say) emergency events or other unforeseen circumstances.  The Opus rates submitted for nominated skills are considered both competitive and sustainable.

 

25      Accordingly, the Evaluation Team recommends the award of the contract to Opus International Consultants in the sum of $1,943,520 for Transport Core Services.

Issues

26      There are no specific or unusual issues to note beyond those discussed elsewhere in the report.


 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

27      No significantly unusual legal considerations are involved with this tender.  As with all contracts projects, there is the risk of a legal challenge regarding the tender results from unsuccessful tenderers. To reduce this risk the Tender Evaluation Team diligently followed the NZ Transport Agency methodology and Council’s procurement policy.

Community Views

28      No specific community views have been sought outside of Council’s Long Term Plan or Annual Plan process due to the nature of the works being business as usual transport activities.

29      This style of contract aims to enhance the service provided to the community and boost responsiveness to their issues.

Costs and Funding

30      The costs will continue to be part of the overall roading management budgets with the NZTA share being apportioned to qualifying roading activities.

Policy Implications

31      As outlined above in the report NZTA tender evaluation process has been followed along with Council’s procurement policy. Consideration was also given to the outcome of the ‘Roading Service Delivery’ review undertaken in 2015.

Analysis

Options Considered

32      The options considered for the tendering of this contract where discussed in the report presented on 21 June 2017.

Assessment of Significance

33      Roading professional services is provided for within the 2015 LTP and representatives a ‘business as usual’ matter. As such a decision in accordance with the recommendation is not considered significant.

Next Steps

34      Formalise the contract.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

  


Services and Assets Committee

9 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Contract 17/5 Mackinnon Loop Watermain Renewal

Record No:        R/17/7/16088

Author:                 Matthew Keil, Operations/Project Engineer-Water and Waste Services

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to recommend the award of contract and commence the programmed watermain renewal in Mackinnon Loop, Te Anau, as presented under staff submission to the Annual Plan during 2016 to occur in 2017-2018 as per Council’s current 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.

Executive Summary

2        This report outlines the proposal to undertake a watermain renewal of an existing 100 mm asbestos cement pipeline where failures are occurring, specifically on service connections off this pipeline within Mackinnon Loop, Te Anau.

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Contract 17/5 Mackinnon Loop Watermain Renewal” dated 30 July 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Approves the Mackinnon Loop Watermain Renewal project to proceed for a total district funded cost of $373,581.54.

e)         Approves the award of contract to Te Anau Earthworks Ltd for the sum of $328,581.54 including the total contingency amount of $25,000.00.

 


 

Content

Background

3        The existing asbestos cement watermain is located within Mackinnon Loop between Pompolona Street and Howden Street, within the township of Te Anau, totalling a distance of 854 lineal metres.

4        The current pipeline is a Class C 100 mm fibrolite asbestos cement pipeline which was installed in 1967 giving it an asset age of 50 years.

5        Due to the number of re-active failures around this pipeline and associated shallow service connections within the Mackinnon Loop area. We have a current record of 41 re-active repairs having been undertaken on these assets since January 2011.

6        A renewal design to rectify these issues includes the installation of 730 lineal metres of DN 63 HDPE rider-main which will service the outer properties within the loop.  This design will mitigate the number of pipeline crossings under road within Mackinnon Loop.

7        The design also incorporates a new DN 125 (100 mm internal diameter) HDPE SDR 13.6 PE 100 watermain within Mackinnon Loop to replace the current asbestos cement pipeline.  The new pipeline alignment of this watermain will be 1 metre offset from the existing watermain, this means conflict during construction between the two pipelines will be minimal.

8        The proposed high density polyethylene pipeline will provide a minimum asset life of 80 years.

Issues

9        Water and Waste staff knowledge of the Mackinnon Loop watermain and its associated service connections is that the main pipeline is assessed as a grade 4 pipeline in ‘poor condition’ as tested and reported by Opus International Consultants in March 2017.

10      The existing service connections are of extremely poor condition.  This is due to poor bedding and low density pipe material, resulting in re-occurring failures (water leaks). These failures are throughout Mackinnon Loop and not in one specific location.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

11      All work to be undertaken within Contract 17/5 is within Council’s roading corridor within Mackinnon Loop.

Community Views

12      Contract 17/5 has been programed to occur, as presented under staff submission to the Annual Plan during 2016 to occur in 2017-2018 as per Council’s current 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.

13      Water and Waste staff have also informed the Te Anau Community Engineer and also
the Te Anau Community Partnership Leader in writing of this project proposal, and to inform the Te Anau Community Board of the commencement of this project.

Costs and Funding

14      The project is to be funded via loan. It was budgeted in the 2017-2018 Annual Plan at $427,656.00.

15      Contract 17/5 was publicly advertised for tender for a period of three weeks.  Tender prices received are as outlined below within Table 1.

16      Tender Prices:

Contract 17/5 Tender Prices

Te Anau Earthworks (conforming)

Downer (conforming)

Downer (alternative)

Fulton Hogan

(conforming)

Section A

$318,285.86

$526,432.48

$423,180.29

$612,173.80

Section B

$10,295.68

$13,597.35

$13,525.96

$11,330.00

Tender Total-Ex GST (Including contingencies)

$328,581.54

$540,029.83

$436,706.25

$623,503.80

Table 1

Total project costs for Contract 17/5 are as outlined below in Table 2.

Contract 17/5 Total Project Costs

Te Anau Earthworks- conforming tender total

$328,581.54

SDC Water and Waste Project and Design Fees

$45,000.00

Total Price- Ex GST (including contingencies)

$373,581.54

Table 2

Policy Implications

17      Contract 17/5 has been programmed to occur within the 2017-2018 financial year and through consultation to the public as outlined within the current 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.

Analysis

Options Considered

18      The following options have been considered as outlined below in Options 1-3.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - A full pipeline renewal including all associated services connections

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        A significant reduction in re-active pipeline failures.

·        A far more robust and reliable reticulation supply to Mackinnon Loop consumers.

·        Minimal long term disruption to Mackinnon Loop residents.

·        Correct installation and QA of the new HDPE pipeline/s.

·        Project costs (although it is planned work to occur as outlined within the current LTP).

·        Intermitted disruptions to the public/traffic entering Mackinnon Loop during the project.

·        A longer establishment to complete the project.

Option 2 - A partial pipeline renewal

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        A short term reduction in costs to the project.

·        A shorter establishment on-site during the project.

·        Correct installation and QA of the new HDPE pipeline/s.

 

·        Due to the current condition rating of the existing pipeline/s in Mackinnon Loop future failures will be imminent and likely to escalate.

·        Expensive re-active repair costs to rectify the failure/s (including pavement reinstatements).

·        Intermitted public/traffic disruptions.

·        Potential water disruptions to Mackinnon Loop water consumers.

Option 3 - Do nothing

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        A short term reduction in costs.

·        Due to the current condition rating of the existing pipeline/s in Mackinnon Loop future failures will be imminent to Council and the Te Anau ratepayers.

·        Expensive re-active repair costs to rectify the failure/s (including pavement reinstatements).

·        Intermitted public/traffic disruptions.

·        Potential water disruptions to Mackinnon Loop water consumers.

 

Assessment of Significance

19      Contract 17/5 has been programmed to occur within the 2017-2018 financial year and through consultation to the public as outlined within the current 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.

Recommended Option

20      Council’s Water and Waste Department recommend a full pipeline replacement as outlined within Option 1.

Next Steps

21      The Services and Assets Committee award Contract 17/5 Mackinnon Loop Watermain Renewal to Te Anau Earthworks for a tendered amount of $328,581.54 excluding GST and a project cost of $373,581.54 excluding GST.

 

Attachments

a         Te Anau Services MacKinnon Loop with Proposed Rider Main A1P 1 700    

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 

 



Services and Assets Committee

9 August 2017

sdclogo

 

IFS Growth Forest Manager's Report of Forestry Activity for the period to 30 June 2017

Record No:        R/17/7/16864

Author:                 Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Report Summary

1        The IFS Growth Forest Manager’s Reports advise of forestry activity for the period
to 30 June 2017.

Southland District Council Forestry Activity

2        The IFS Growth Forest Manager’s reports received are attached.

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “IFS Growth Forest Manager's Report of Forestry Activity for the period to 30 June 2017” dated 2 August 2017.

 

Attachments

a         IFS Forest Managers Report for Period Ending 30 June 2017

b         IFS Forest Managers Report for Period Ending 31 May 2017

c         IFS Health and Safety Report - Received from IFS 24 July 2017

d         IFS Health and Safety Report - Received from IFS 16 June 2017    

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


 


 


 


 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


 


 


 


 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 

 

 


Services and Assets Committee

9 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Downer Water and Wastewater Maintenance Contract 10/01 - Monthly Report for June 2017

Record No:        R/17/7/15470

Author:                 Bill Witham, Operations Manager - Water and Waste Services

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Background

1       Downer was awarded Contract 10/01 for delivery of water and wastewater services to Council for the Southland District.  The contract was awarded in 2010 for a maximum period of 12 years.

Purpose

2       The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the progress of this contract. 
A representative of Water and Waste Services will be in attendance to speak to the report.

Summary

3       KPI scoring of 79%.

Compliance (Drinking-water)

4        All drinking water compliance testing was completed and carried out as per
New Zealand Drinking-water Standards.  All samples were absent of Escherichia Coli, thus meeting the required bacteriological standards.

Compliance (Environmental)

5        There were no non-compliant tests reported. However, three planned analysis tests at Nightcaps were omitted due to operator error.

Operations and Maintenance

6        Service request calls for the month were 57; which is consistent with historical trends and significantly lower than the previous reporting period.

Financial

7        There were no outstanding claims or variations to the contract.  All claims and invoices for completed work were certified and accepted.

Customer Service

8        There were 100 service requests received with 94 inspected within response time, no odour complaints.

Health and Safety

9        There were no incidents reported.

Quality Assurance

10      Zero Non Conformance/Opportunity for Improvement Reports were issued and no instances of rework or product failure during the month.


 

11      Water Consumption

 

12     Explanation of Differential - Water

Rural water projects let but awaiting suitable weather window.

$318,000

Winton water main residual to be used for following staged work.

$400,000

Riverton water treatment plant residual enhancement costs.

$527,011

Eastern Bush upgrade is a multi-year project.

$76,503

Te Anau lateral replacements awaiting tender closing.

$179,630

District monitoring.

$150,100

Residual projects - various minor projects yet to be started or awaiting synergy of another project to commence.

$56,531

$1,707,775

13     Explanation of Differential – Sewer

Note:  The negative value in the June quarter is due to the desludging projects not proceeding as anticipated.  This work is rescheduled for 2017/2018 subject to weather conditions and disposal approvals from Environment Southland.

 

CCTV awaiting availability of limited resource in Southland.

$101,900

Otautau pump station upgrades not yet carried out due to subcontractor availability.

$153,096

Riverton Bay Street main replacement carried out in 2015/2016 year.

$93,420

Riversdale sewer option.

$44,986

Stewart Island sewer treatment and disposal upgrade - awaiting subcontractor availability.

$119,140

Adjustment for Te Anau treatment and disposal contract taken at different cost centre.

$194,642

Residual projects - various minor projects yet to be started.

$90,992

$798,176

 

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Downer Water and Wastewater Maintenance Contract 10/01 - Monthly Report for June 2017” dated 30 July 2017.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.  

 


Services and Assets Committee

9 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Roading Operations June 2017

Record No:        R/17/7/15541

Author:                 Dylan Rabbidge, Commercial Lead Roading

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

Background

1       SouthRoads currently have the Waimea and Central Alliance maintenance contracts with Fulton Hogan having the Foveaux Alliance.  The Tendering process has been completed and approved by Council with no change to any of the Alliances.  These new contracts begin on
1 July 2017.

Purpose

2       The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the progress of the major roading maintenance and capital works contracts.

Summary

3       Customer Satisfaction; 114 Requests for Service (RFS), across the three Alliance contracts were received in June with two not completed on time.  In 2015/16 82 RFS’s were received in June.  For the full year 1,138 RFS’s were received compared to 1,172 for 2015/16.

4       Health and Safety; 4 near missis were reported for June with no Lost Time Injuries reported.  6 Site Safety Audits were completed in June.

5        Activity Performance:

·              Metalling, 73,233m3 or 99% was completed for 2016/17.

·              Grading, 14,500 km or 100% was completed for 2016/17.

·              2017/18 Pre-Reseal Repairs, 113 of 153 sites have been released for inspection. 
The length completed is 104.3 km of 156.71 km or 66.56%.

·              Stabilisations, 10,135 m2 (100%) have been completed of a total programmed
10,135 m2.

·              Edge Break, 21,760 m (76%) of a programmed 28,513 m.

6        Risk and Strategy:

·              Slips, Brydone Glencoe and Chaslands Highway have both completed an ILM (Investment Logic Mapping) which is the first step in developing a Business Case.  Waiarikiki Mimihau Road, Temporary repairs holding well with approval for permanent repairs being worked on.

·              Roads, Mandeville Kingston Crossing Road high crash site with Roy Clearwater (Safety Engineer) investigating this site is to be monitored for a solution.  The hedge has been removed from this site and additional signs are to be erected.

·              Coastal Route, “High Crash Rate” signage and 50 kph signs helping to reduce the number and severity of crashes.  Road has been approved for seal extension.

Financial

7        There were no outstanding claims or variations to the contract.  All claims and invoices for completed work were certified and accepted.

Capital Projects

8        The Alternative Coastal Route Seal Extension is progressing well with The Roading Company currently on schedule.  The Project Status Report is attached.

9        Resource consent has been granted for the Bridges that were held up in 2016/17.  These have been approved with various conditions and construction is expected to commence shortly.  These were held up by the Department of Conservation not providing written approval as an “affected party” on the resource consent. 

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Roading Operations June 2017” dated 2 August 2017.

 

 

Attachments

a         June Project Status Report - Alternative Coastal Route Seal Extension

b         12-01 Waimea Alliance A3 monthly report June 2017

c         06-26 Foveaux Alliance A3 report June 2017

d         13-01 Central Alliance June 2017 A3 Central

e         Roading Operational Overview June 2017  


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


Services and Assets Committee

9 August 2017

sdclogo

 

NZTA Three Year Programme Performance

Record No:        R/17/7/16188

Author:                 Dylan Rabbidge, Commercial Lead Roading

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Background

1       NZTA partners with Southland District Council to provide funding assistance for Roading activities in the Southland District.  Funding is provided based off the approved National Land Transport Plan (NLTP).  This funding is for a three year period from July 2015 through to June 2018.

Purpose

2       The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the progress of SDC against the NLTP and provide details of the proposed process moving forward looking in detail at major risks to completing the proposed 2017/18 Roading programme.

Summary

3       NZTA Performance

Maintenance work categories (the 100 series) are projected for the three year programme to be $54K or 0.16% over budget.  Capital work, renewals work categories (the 200 series) are projected to be $3.4M under budget, this predominantly due to funds being transferred between categories in particular $2.4M additional costs for the Alternative Coastal Route.  Reducing spend in the other activities was approved as part of the funding for the Alternative Coastal Route Project.  The remaining reduction has been transferred to the “Accelerated LED Renewal Project”.  Improvement work categories (the 300 series) are projected to be $3.4M over budget.   Currently, SDC is in a position to fully utilise the NZTA budget.  Overall a total variance of $13K or 0.02% is predicted.

4       Annual Plan comparison to NZTA 2017/18

A comparison between the approved 2017/18 NZTA budget and SDC’s 2017/18 Annual Plan there is a variance of $3.8M.  Strategic Roading are proposing that the $2.4M related to the Alternative Coastal Route be included in the Forecast presented to Council in October/November as this project and spend has already been approved.  The additional $1M for the LED project will be a separate paper. As this project is funded at 85% FAR, Council’s contribution is $150K.

5        Works Programme 2017/18:

The major areas of risk in achieving the 2017/18 budget are in relation to the Minor Improvements and the Alternative Coastal Route.

·              The Coastal Route has been completed under Regional Funds (R funds) meaning that as a contract is in place SDC can carry forward funds into 2018/19.  Risks of completing projects will be discussed further on.

·              Minor Improvements have an NZTA budget of $3.7M. Each project or package of work has to be completed for $300K or under.  As of 20 July 2017 Strategic Roading has $1.45M tendered and at various stages of construction.  The remaining $2.25M is to be allocated to the following projects (please note the costs associated are estimates only):

(a)        2017/18 Bridge Programme $430K.

(b)        Otta Seal – Ramparts Road $200K.

(c)        Upgrade Pearl Harbour $200K.

(d)        Slope Point – New car park $115K.

(e)        Seal Widening – Clifton Blackmount $300K.

(f)        Rehabilitation Improvements $100K.

(g)        Land Acquisition – Ringaringa Road $100K.

(h)        Road Sealing – Lindsay Street and Florence Road South $100K.

(i)         Guardrails – various sites currently being investigated $450K.

(j)         Designs for 18/19 Minor Improvement projects, Guardrails, Bridge replacements, Seal Widening etc. $250K.

·              A package of Drainage was approved by Council on the 19th July with two more packages being finalised, a report to Services and Assets will be presented in future.

·              Reseals are a significant item in the renewals programme.  The Reseals contract Tender closes in July which will provide a good indication of programme cost.

·              Two rehabilitations are currently being designed as these meet NZTA requirements these are projected to cost $939K.  Additionally, SDC and ICC are completing a joint rehab (a boundary road) this project is being led by ICC with the estimated cost to SDC of $165K.  One other rehabilitation has a positive NPV calculation (Mabel Woodstock Road) $365K.  Total expected cost for 2017/18 is $1.469M.

·              Pyramid Bridge, while this project has taken time to gain traction it is required to have a contract for construction to be in place by 30 June 2018.  Given that designs are not complete and resource consent has not been applied for it is unlikely that this project will be progressed to the point of completion by 30 June 2018.  Discussions will be ongoing with NZTA in relation to the amount to be funded with approval processes for each Council to undertake.  This project is also funded from R funds.

·              The LED project is currently having the tender developed and on approval will go to market.   

6        Risk and Strategy:

·              With any budget there are multiple inputs that will influence the ability to achieve success.  Strategic Roading place a major emphasis on “Value for money” with undertaking investments at the appropriate time and not because we have money.

·              Below is a Fishbone diagram that illustrates the multiple reasons why reaching budget is difficult.

 

7        Financial

In year one of the LTP Strategic Roading paid off an additional $1.5M in loans from unspent budget.  Reducing debt then was the most appropriate use of that budget.  Now to fund the budgeted three year expenditure it will be necessary to borrow back or reloan that money.  If the total allocated NZTA funding across the three year programme is to be utilised the $1.5M will need to be reloaned back to the roading programme. This is the outcome that is incorporated in the LTP.

8        Overall Strategic Roading do not intend to spend more than was allowed for in the three years of the Long Term Plan 2015/2018.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “NZTA Three Year Programme Performance” dated 31 July 2017.

b)         Notes that the 2017/18 budget forecast approvals required will be reflected in the Financial Reforecast to be presented in November 2017. 

 

 

Attachments

a         SDC NZTA Funding Analysis Three Year NZTA Programme    

 



Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 


 


Services and Assets Committee

9 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Services and Assets Contracts Update

Record No:        R/17/7/16570

Author:                 Trudy Saunders, Contracts Adminstrator

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Background

1       The Services and Assets Contract Management tracks Roading, Water and Waste and Property Divisions operations and capex contracts.  This report just lists the status of the Community Services contracts.

2       The Water and Waste and Roading opex and capex contracts are reported through their respective operations reports.

Purpose

3       The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the progress of status of all Contracts within Services and Assets.

Summary

4       Property:  As of 20 July 2017 the following Property related contracts are in progress:

Department

Current

Due soon

Work In Progress

Overdue

Total

Property

17

1

18

Community Engineers

29

1

4

8

42

 

46

1

5

8

60

Overview

5       Property Department contracts cover hall custodians and cleaning of buildings owned by SDC, such as offices and libraries.

6       Community Engineers contracts cover township Maintenance, mowing, gardening and cleaning of public toilets.

7       Some cleaning of toilets and mowing areas are covered within the Roading Alliance Contracts.

Analysis

8       The eight contracts that are overdue are currently with Community Engineers to discuss scope and price with the contractors. No progress has been made within the last month. 

9       Of the five that are Work In Progress:

·              Two are with the Contractors to confirm they agree with extension.

·              One is with the Property Officer for the custodian contract and waiting on signed paperwork from the contractor.  

·              Two are being prepared to go to Tender.

Risk and Strategy:

10     Three of our cleaning or beautification contractors are not currently on our Health and Safety Approved Contractors List.  This has been highlighted to the Community Engineer who is working with the contractors to provide the appropriate paperwork. No progress has been made in the last month.

11     It should be noted too that all the work carried out in the contracts referred to above falls within the scope of the s17A review currently being carried out.  This review will assess the options for delivery of these services and consider how best to scope, manage and deliver these works.  That report is due to be completed in August.

Financial

12      It is difficult to get an accurate summary of costs of all Property related contracts due to the majority of these being maintenance contracts and paid out per clean or mow. 

 

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Services and Assets Contracts Update” dated 26 July 2017.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.  

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 

Work Schemes Survey

Record No:        R/17/7/16576

Author:                 Chris Klein, Works Scheme Supervisor

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Work Schemes survey report 2016/2017

1        The Strategy and Policy Department undertook the Work Scheme and Maintenance Service Client Satisfaction Survey in May 2017.

2        The objective of the survey is to provide staff with useful feedback on whether jobs were completed to specifications and to gauge satisfaction with costs of doing the work.

3        It is also used to report on whether the levels of service outlined in the Long Term Plan are being achieved.

 

Results

4        Please see the attached report for the results of the survey.  Clients of the service were asked to respond to an online survey consisting of eleven questions.   One question was linked to the performance measure for Work schemes which is found under the Community Assistance council activity in the Community Services activity group in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025.  The performance measure is “Percentage of clients satisfied that the work is completed according to the specifications” with a target of 90% satisfaction. Client comments in the survey were generally positive and where they are any issues these are being dealt with by the Team Leader. 

5        The result was 100% so the target was met.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Work Schemes Survey” dated 30 July 2017.

b)         Notes that the satisfaction survey shows for the measure:

·    Satisfaction; 100% of clients were either Very Satisfied or Satisfied in terms of the work completed according to specifications.

·    Costs; 13 out of 14 respondents either Strongly Agreed or Agreed the costs were fair and reasonable

·    Work undertaken; 9 of 14 respondents rated the work undertaken made it possible for small communities to complete projects where they would otherwise not be able to due to costs or lack of resources.  The other 5 said it was Not Applicable.

 

 

Attachments

a         Work Scheme survey results report    

 

 

 

 

 Work Scheme Survey Results - 2016/2017

 

 

Background

The Strategy and Policy Department undertook the Work Scheme and Maintenance Service Client Satisfaction Survey in May 2017. The objective of the survey is to provide staff with useful feedback on whether jobs were completed to specifications and to gauge satisfaction with costs of doing the work. It is also used to report on whether the levels of service outlined in the Long Term Plan are being achieved.

 

In 2016/2017 the scheme carried out projects for twelve internal clients and two external clients.

 

In 2015/2016 the scheme carried out projects for eleven internal clients and two external clients.

 

Method

The survey was conducted via Survey Monkey in May 2017 and sent to all clients that the Work Scheme and Maintenance Service had completed work for over the 2016/2017 financial year.  A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix one.

 

Response

Fourteen surveys were sent out and all were returned giving a response rate of 100%.
The margin of error was zero (0%). The survey population was small so the results will not be statistically significant. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Services and Assets Committee

09 August 2017

 

Results

 

Question 1 - Please specify the number of jobs undertaken annually for you/your organisation by Work Schemes?

 

Graph 1 - Please specify the number of jobs undertaken annually for you/your organisation by Work Schemes?

 

Please specify the number of jobs undertaken annually for you/your organisation by Work Schemes?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

1 - 5

29%

4

5 - 10

7%

1

10 - 15

7%

1

15 - 20

21%

3

Over 20

36%

5

Other (please specify the number )

0

answered question

14

skipped question

0

Table 1 - Please specify the number of jobs undertaken annually for you/your organisation by Work Schemes?

 

Trends

The latest results from 14 respondents show 4 (29%) had 1-5 jobs undertaken, 1 (7%) had 5-10 jobs undertaken, 1 (7%) had 10-15 jobs undertaken, 3 had (21%) had 15-20 jobs undertaken and 5 (36%) had over 20 jobs undertaken. The results show an increase in the frequency of jobs from the previous survey. In 2015/2016 of the 13 respondents, 2 (15%) had 1-5 jobs undertaken, 2 (15%) had 5-10 jobs undertaken, 1 (8%) had 10-15 jobs undertaken, 3 (23%) had 15-20 jobs undertaken and 5 (39%) had over 20 jobs undertaken.

 

In 2014/2015 of the 11 respondents, three (27.3%) had 1-5 jobs undertaken, one (9.1%) had 5-10 jobs, one (9.1%) had 10-15, two (18.2%) had 15-20 jobs and four (36.4%) had over
20 jobs undertaken. 

 

Question 2 - Please specify the type of job undertaken?

Graph 2 - Please specify the type of job undertaken?

Please specify the type of job undertaken

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Outside Maintenance

33%

4

Inside Maintenance

17%

2

Reserves Maintenance

17%

2

Administration/Enveloping

0%

0

Recycling

8%

1

Beautification

25%

3

Other (please specify)

5

answered question

12

skipped question

2

Table 2 - Please specify the type of job undertaken?

 

Other types of jobs – please specify

·    Milk Bottles

·    Both internal and external maintenance.

·    Filing, rubbish disposal, furniture services

·    Collection and relocation of Library resources - books/shelving/whatever.

·    Removal of shelving in the Knowledge Management department

 

Trends

The latest results show the most popular job type was outside maintenance (33%) followed by Beautification 25%.

 

In 2015/2016 the most popular job type was Beautification (40%) followed by outside maintenance (20%).  In 2014/2015 the most popular job type was Reserves Maintenance followed by Outside Maintenance. Respondents could select more than one category.

 

Question 3 - Work schemes completed the work for you according to the specifications?

 

Graph 3 - Work schemes completed the work for you according to the specifications?

 

Work schemes completed the work for you according to the specifications?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Very Satisfied

50%

7

Satisfied

50%

7

Dissatisfied

0%

0

Very Dissatisfied

0%

0

answered question

14

skipped question

0

 

Trends

The latest results show the 14 clients were either very satisfied (50%) or satisfied (50%). In 2015/2016, twelve clients (92%) were either satisfied or very satisfied with the work; one client (8%) was dissatisfied. In 2014/2015, ten clients (91%) were either satisfied or very satisfied with the work and one client (9%) was dissatisfied. The latest results does meet the KPI target in the 10 Year plan 2015-2025 of a 90% satisfaction level.

Question 4 - If you answered Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied did you provide feedback to the Work Scheme Co-ordinator? If not, why not?

No respondents were very dissatisfied or dissatisfied. 

 

Question 5 - If any of the work did not specifications, could you please outline the specifications not met?

No respondents commented on this question. 

Question 6 - Do you agree that the costs were fair and reasonable? (I.e. value for money?)

Graph 4 - Do you agree that the costs were fair and reasonable? (I.e. value for money?)

Do you agree that the costs were fair and reasonable? (i.e. value for money?)

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly Agree

14%

2

Agree

79%

11

Disagree

7%

1

Strong Agree

0%

0

answered question

13

skipped question

0

Table 4 - Do you agree that the costs were fair and reasonable? (I.e. value for money?)

93% strongly agreed or agreed costs were fair and reasonable. One respondent (7%) disagreed.

Question 7 - If possible, please comment on the reason for your response above:

·    Can source local contractors cheaper for some jobs.

·    Had I had to contract with work to another provider, if I could have found one, it would have been a very expensive option and possibly not as tailored for the purpose.

·    Sometimes a bigger crew is better, but often only Junior and one other will be doing a task (has been commented on by Riverton Board chairman)

·    Lack of numbers is a concern v costs. Not transparent how many people you have on a job from one to the next.

Question 8 - Did the work undertaken for you make it possible for small communities to complete projects where they would otherwise not be able to due to costs or lack of resources?

 

Graph 5 - Did the work undertaken for you make it possible for small communities to complete projects where they would otherwise not be able to due to costs or lack of resources?

 

Did the work undertaken for you make it possible for small communities to complete projects where they would otherwise not be able to due to costs or lack of resources?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Yes

64%

9

No

0%

0

Not applicable

36%

5

answered question

14

skipped question

0

Table 5 - Did the work undertaken for you make it possible for small communities to complete projects where they would otherwise not be able to due to costs or lack of resources?

Trends

The latest results show 9 out of 14 (64%) said that the work undertaken did make it possible for small communities to complete projects. This is similar to the previous survey. In 2015/2016, nine out of 13 (69%) said that the work undertaken did make it possible for small communities to complete projects.  In 2014/2015, six out of the 11 respondents (55%) said that the work undertaken did make it possible for small communities to complete projects. 

 

Question 9 - Please comment on your overall satisfaction with the Southland District Council Work Scheme or suggest any specific areas for improvement.

Overall, comments were positive although communication in some cases was an issue. 

 

Please see all the comments below. 

·    All Good. work Schemes give these people some training in different areas

·    We are happy with the work undertaken

·    Time management - gang finish early and were having a smoke at vehicle when I arrived half an hour before finish time to check progress

·    Generally ok, however there are quality assurance issues from time to time.

·    Supervisor very obliging and happy to help with all necessary jobs in a friendly and professional manner.  He seemed to have good control of the workers as well.

·    With the sometimes limited number of workers I believe another two trainee work scheme supervisors would be beneficial to improve the service and allow for duties to continue when staff go on leave. Costs will increase slightly but we do need to be realistic that communities are brought into the real world of costs to complete otherwise undervalued maintenance activities.

·    Poor communication. At times reliability and standard of workmanship not quite up to expectations. Good aspect is availability at short notice. Overall service has declined over the past few years.

·    I am happy with Work Scheme work

·    I find the opportunity to use the Work Scheme as a valuable asset. Both the Lumsden and Balfour community book sales benefited from the last job as well as the Wyndham Library - probably says it all.

·    They did a great job and were very responsive to requests

·    Great service, prompt response to requests. Does work that is difficult to source from local operators.

·    Communication is lacking. Knowing when jobs are completed. Jobs given but not undertaken weeks/months later with no explanation.

 

Question 10 - Can you think of any other services that the Works Schemes can assist you with?

·    Not Applicable

·    No at present

·    No (2)

·    There will be similar projects which we will use them for in the coming year but this past year they have helped with changes at Stewart Island, Wyndham, Te Anau and Otautau Libraries and also community work in Lumsden, Balfour and Wyndham.

·    Nil Work is being given slowly to other contractors.

 

Question 11 - Can you think of any other organisation or individual who would be interested in using the service?

Please see all the comments below:

·    Old people

·    No (3)

 

Conclusion

Work Scheme clients continue to be highly satisfied with the quality of work undertaken by the Work Schemes activity and believe the costs are fair and reasonable.

 

 

 


 

Appendix 1 - Questionnaire