SM031 Appendix G1 KPI Incentive Scheme · Contract Number & Name Page 1 of 36 SM031 App G1 Issue 2: 1 August 2008 25) G1 Issue 2-KPI NZTA SM031 Appendix G1 KPI Incentive Scheme SUBJECT:

Contract Number & Name Page 1 of 36 SM031 App G1 Issue 2: 1 August 2008 25) G1 Issue 2-KPI NZTA

SM031 Appendix G1 KPI Incentive Scheme

SUBJECT: PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS TO MEASURE SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE IN NON COST AREAS

Purpose Detail the procedure to insert the NZ Transport Agency’s (NZTA) non-price incentive system into your contract.

Objective of the Scheme To incentivise a contractor’s performance in non cost areas such as environmental, health and safety and social areas.

Background The incentive scheme was developed for use on the Grafton Gully Project. The scheme is intended to enhance the supplier’s performance in critical areas by measuring a number of non-cost performance measures. Inclusion of this Clause in the contract documents requires approval of the CEO (upto $250k) or NZTA Authority (over $250k). The scheme uses 5 non-price key performance measures (KPM’s ) each KPM has a number of key performance indicators (KPI’s ). The purpose of the scheme is to establish, and maintain appropriate behaviors between the contractor, NZTA, the public and key stakeholders by the sharing of risk and reward in non-cost areas. The scheme has the potential to be extended to include project specific KPM’s and KPI’s. Any new KPM’s or KPI’s must have a comprehensive assessment process. All new KPM’s and KPI’s shall be forwarded to NZTA’ s contract coordinator for discussion prior to inclusion in the contract docum ents.

How To Implement Scheme 1. Seek NHM Approval in principle to implement a non price KPM scheme, 2. Obtain CEO (upto $250k) or authority (over $250k) approval of the complete

scheme. 3. Develop any new KPI’s and measurement systems (if applicable) and forward

new KPI’s to NZTA’s Contract Coordinator for review. 4. Set performance measures, and determine frequency of measurement 5. Amend the following Sections of the contract documents (Conditions of Contract,

Instructions For Tendering, Schedule of Prices, Basis of Payment, Project Specification (or Principal’s Requirements), Appendices) as detailed below. Clause references refer to SM031 Issue 2 (April 2002).

6. Install and agree all aspects of the scheme (including risk/reward amount, measurement frequency, KPI’s, review team, performance spectra) during the preletting stage. The scheme must be 100% tied down prior to contract award.


Instructions for Tendering (SM031 Appendix A2, A4, A6, B2)

SM031 Appendix A2, A4, A6. Insert the following new clause 1.15 (ie after IFT clause 1.14, Miscellaneous requirements). SM031 Appendix B2 Insert the following new clause 1.29 (ie after IFT clause 1.28, Miscellaneous requirements).

1.15 Project Incentive Scheme

1.15.1 NZTA considers performance in non-cost areas to be very important and wishes to incentivise the contractor to perform better than “business as usual” by implementing an incentive scheme.

1.15.2 The incentive scheme will provide the successful tenderer with an opportunity to be rewarded for high standards of performance in areas such as

1) Traffic, 2) Time, 3) Stakeholders (including services) 4) Environment, 5) Health and Safety (process only) 6) Quality and Aesthetics

1.15.3 The principle of this scheme is that NZTA will place an agreed amount of money as a “reward”, which would be paid to the successful tenderer, on a sliding scale, in the event of superior performance by the successful tenderer. In addition the successful tenderer will place an equal amount of money at “risk ” which would be paid to NZTA, on a sliding scale in the event of substandard performance by the successful tenderer in the agreed areas.

1.15.4 Because the scheme is fiscally neutral around business as usual performance NZTA sees the scheme best being agreed only with the preferred tenderer prior to contract award. NZTA would welcome feedback on the concept during the interactive tender meetings.

1.15.5 The criteria, methodology and frequency for measuring the Contractor’s performance shall be defined and documented during the preferred tenderer negotiation process, and agreed in full prior to contract award.

1.15.6 Measurement of the agreed performance indicators shall be carried out by the Consultant and contractor jointly.

1.15.7 Payment (or deduction) of the reward / risk will be made through the schedule of prices at agreed milestones throughout the contract period (eg monthly).

1.15.8 The amount of reward / risk will be determined by negotiation between NZTA and the preferred tenderer. NZTA has posted an amount in the schedule of Prices as a provisional sum. This represents the maximum that NZTA will commit to the scheme, and will form the basis of negotiating the reward / risk amount with the preferred tenderer. This amount will either be matched by an equal amount the contractor puts at risk, or reduced to a lesser amount the contractor puts at risk.

1.15.9 NZTA's right to deduct moneys as a result of the implementation of this project incentive scheme is a right in addition to and not in substitution for NZTA's rights as principal under the Contract Documents arising from any breach by the Contractor of its obligations under the Contract Documents.


Conditions of Contract (SM031 Appendix A8, or B4)

Insert the following new clause into the Special conditions of Contract

Add new 14.2.5

14.2.5 The Contractor acknowledges that the Principal's right to deduct moneys from payments otherwise due to the Contractor under the Contract Documents where that right of deduction arises from the implementation of a scheme known as the project incentive scheme (and referred to in clause 1.15 of the Instructions for Tendering) is a right in addition to and not in substitution for the Principal's rights under the Contract Documents arising from any breach by the Contractor of its obligations under the Contract Documents.

Schedule of Prices

Insert the following new item into the schedule of prices Preliminaries and General Section as the last P&G item.

Item Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount

1.X Key Performance Measures (KPM) Incentive Scheme

1 PS 200,000 200,000

1.Y KPM Incentive Scheme Administration 1 PS 50,000 50,000

<<<Guidance Note: the Provisional Sum amount shall be agreed with NZTA’s project manager prior to issuing document. For outstanding success in the non-cost performance area NZTA would post up to 5% of the contract value for projects up to $5M and on a sliding scale to a maximum of $1M for project of $100M or above. NZTA CEO approval is required for any amount up to $250K. NZTA Authority approval is required for any amount greater than $250k

<<<Guidance Note: The total provisional sum amount associated with the KPM scheme shall include any administration cost associated with measuring the scheme. Eg for a $250,000 scheme NZTA will post $X for the scheme, and $Y for administering the scheme, where X + Y = $250,000>>>

Basis of Payment

Insert the following new item into the basis of payment preliminaries and general section, location of clause and format of clause numbering to match the rest of the basis of payment

1.1 Key Performance Measures (KPM) Incentive Scheme

Schedule of Prices Item 1.X

Payment or deduction shall be made against the Key Performance Measures (KPM) Incentive Scheme Provisional Sum. The amount of actual risk/reward figure to apply for the relevant contract will be agreed between the Principal and the preferred tenderer prior to contract award.

The amount paid against this item will vary depending on the contractors average Overall Performance Score (OPS), derived from the non-price KPM’s. For example if the contractor has an average of 100 (out of a maximum of 100), they will be paid


100% of the agreed reward/risk amount. If the average score is 50, they will be paid $0, if the average score is 0 the Principal will deduct 100% of the reward/risk amount. Any score in between will be pro rated accordingly.

Payment against this item will be made on the following basis:-

i) 100% of the amount, based on the average OPS, derived from the non-price KPM’s, calculated in accordance with the project specification will be pro rated monthly and paid incrementally each month.

ii) If the forecast completion date is moved, then the outstanding “amount at risk” shall be pro rated monthly across the remaining project duration and the measurement frequency amended to reflect the new forecast completion date.

iii) For KPI’s not measured monthly (eg Time) an interim KPI of 50 (Business as usual) shall be used until the first measurement is undertaken, after which the KPI measurement used in generating the OPS shall be in accordance with the project specification/Principal’s requirements.

Monthly payments are not final. An adjustment may be made at the final payment date to record the correct amount of risk/reward payment due to or by a contractor based on its OPS for the entire project.

The following example shows how the contractor would be paid for an average OPS score of 60 in month 1, rising to 70 then falling to 45 before rising to 52.5 over a 6 month contract period, and assumes an agreed risk/reward amount of $250,000.

The significant range of monthly OPS scores is unlikely in practice, but is useful to illustrate the following points:

1. Payments are cumulative, just because an amount was paid in month 1, it is not “money in the bank” but is still at risk, as payments are based on the average (ie cumulative OPS score over the whole contract period.

2. Only a portion of the total risk/reward amount is made available each month

3. Payment is based on the average OPS, not the monthly OPS.

Month 1 2 3 4 5 6

Final

Monthly OPS Score (calculated using KPI sheets)

60 80 40 20 25 90

Average OPS Score (this is used for payment) 60 70 60 50 45 52.5

Cumulative Monthly payment (% of total amount at risk)

16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 16.66% 16.66%

Cumulative Amount at risk ($) 41,675 83,350 125,025 166,700 208,350 250,000

Cumulative payment (ratio of average OPS score multiplied by cumulative amount at risk)

10/50 x

41,675 =

8,335

20/50 x

83,350 =

33,340

10/50 x

125,025 =

25,005

0/50 x

166,700 =

0

-5/50 x

208,350 =

(20,835)

2.5/50 x

250000 =

12,500

Monthly payment 8,335 25,005 (8,335) (22,005) (20835) 33,335

Application of this scheme relies on the good faith of the parties. If after 3 months of operation either party wish to terminate the KPM scheme any amounts paid to date under this item shall be final, and no further payment made under this lump sum.

1.2 KPM Incentive Scheme Administration

Schedule of Prices Item 1.Y

Payment shall be made against the KPM Incentive Scheme Administration Provisional Sum. A lump sum value for this item shall be agreed between the Principal and the preferred tenderer prior to contract award.


busi

ness

as

usua

l

best

pra

ctic

e

outs

tand

ing

perf

orm

ance

Failure

low

end

of B

AU

S T R E T C H500

100

Payment against this item will be made on the following basis:-

i) 100% of the amount will be pro rated monthly and paid incrementally each month.

ii) If the forecast completion date is moved, then any outstanding amount shall be pro rated monthly across the remaining project duration and the monthly amount paid amended to reflect the new forecast completion date.

Administration of this scheme relies on the good faith of the parties. If after 3 months of operation either party wish to terminate the KPM scheme any amounts paid to date under this item shall be final, and no further payment made against the agreed lump sum under this schedule item.

Project Specification / Principal’s Requirements ( SM031 Appendix A, B3)

SM031 Appendix A does not have a proforma project specification. The following shall be insert into the appropriate section in the contract project specification, for example “general requirements”, or “performance reporting” or similar.

When using SM031 Appendix B3 insert the following new clause 1.26 (ie after IFT clause 1.25, Road Maintenance).

1.26 Project Incentive Scheme

1.26.1 The Non price Key Performance Measures (KPM’s ) have been identified as areas where good/bad performance is seen to add or detract from the value of this project to NZTA. This incentive scheme will ensure that the Contractor and NZTA share in the gain/pain depending on the actual performance of the Contractor, compared with pre agreed targets in these non-price areas.

1.26.2 Business as Usual (BAU) for each non-price KPM is detailed below. Appendix <<<XX ) Consultant to enter appendix reference>>> details the performance spectra and measuring process for each individual non-price KPM .

1.26.3 The Overall Performance Score (OPS) is a score between 0 and 100; where 0 represents complete failure, 50 represents BAU and 100 represent outstanding performance. The OPS is the weighted average of the KPM’s being measured that month. An OPS>50 would mean that, on balance, the Contractor has delivered outcomes (in non cost areas) that were better than BAU. Whereas an OPS<50 would mean that the Contractor has delivered poorer than BAU outcomes in non cost areas.

1.26.4 Measurement of the non-price KPM’s and Calculation of the OPS will be undertaken jointly by the Contractor and Consultant.

1.26.5 In the event that the Contractor and Consultant can not agree a KPI measurement the matter shall be elevated to the Project Management Board (PMB) for resolution.

1.26.6 Neither NZTA nor the Contractor has the right to appeal, challenge or reject the KPM or OPS marks once they have been reported by the Consultant. Interim payments shall be made on the basis of the average OPS.

1.26.7 The risk/reward payment will be derived from the OPS. The OPS will be calculated from the KPM . Each KPM will be derived from a number of key performance


indicators KPI’s . Each KPI has a defined performance spectrum, and methodology which will generate a mark between 0 and 100 (see table below). The contractor and Consultant will jointly measure each KPI .

1.26.8 Appendix XX <<Consultant to state>> provides a proforma OPS calculation sheet, which will be completed by the Consultant.

1.26.9 The following table identifies the KPM’s, and KPI’s and the weightings to be used in generating the OPS. <<Guidance note the following table details all KPI items currently available. Additional KPI’s may be developed, to meet project specific needs, and a copy forwarded to NZTA’s contract coordinator [email protected]>>

Key Performance Measure (KPM)

KPM Weighting

Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI Weighting

Traffic 28 % Development of Site Specific Traffic Management Plans 20 %

Implementation of Site Specific Traffic Management Plans 80 %

Time 20% Achievement of contract completion date 80 %

Achievement of Separable portion 1 completion date 10 %

Achievement of Separable portion 2 completion date 10 %

Stakeholders (Including Services)

20% Disruptions to utility services 35 %

Key stakeholder satisfaction 35 %

Community Interaction: Response to external communication 20 %

Community Interaction: Visitors to information centre 10 %

Environment 10% Overall Environmental Compliance 100 %

Health & Safety (process only)

15% Implementation of Health and Safety Delivery Plan 100 %

Lost Time Accidents and Severity 0 %

Quality and Aesthetics

7% Quality achievement and overall look of the site 100 %

Note 1: Lost time accidents and severity are not to be included in calculation of the OPS

1.26.10 Application of this incentive scheme relies on the good faith of the parties. If after 3 months of operation either party wish to terminate the KPM scheme any amounts paid to date under this item shall be final, and no further payment made against the agreed lump sums.

1.26.11 The following tables details the performance spectra & means of measuring each KPI. It details the measurement methodology & frequency for each KPI <<Guidance note: Consultants may add project specific KPI’s as long as performance can be quantified to the same degree as the following items. Items to consider may include Pedestrian Management (Traffic), or noise monitoring (Environmental)>>


Key Performance Indicator

Traffic – Development of Site Specific Traffic Management Plans (SSTMP’s)

Measurement Frequency Monthly

Review Team Consultant & Contractor’s Named Representative

Performance spectra Measure Fail Poor BAU Best Practice Outstanding Audit of Compliance with Traffic Management Plan development requirements.

SSTMPs completed and implemented without any prior consultation with outside parties

Average process score greater than or equal to 7

SSTMPs completed and implemented with minimal prior consultation with outside parties.

Average process score 6

Majority of SSTMPs completed and implemented with prior consultation with outside parties.


Majority of SSTMPs completed and implemented with full and proper consultation with outside parties.


All SSTMPs completed and implemented with full and proper consultation with outside parties.

Average process score less than 1

KPI Score Where the average process score = 0 the KPI is 100. Where the average process score = 7.50 or more, the KPI is 0. An average process score between 0 and 7.5 will result in a KPI calculated using the following formula:

1005.7

Pr1 x

scoreocessAverageKPI

−=

All Site Specific Traffic Management Plans (SSTMPs) active on a single day each month will be included in the monitoring programme. Each SSTMP will be assessed in terms of compliance with the development procedures in the Traffic Management Plan (TMP ). An audit of each SSTMP will be undertaken by a two man team and identify the chain of events leading to the set-out of traffic control on site.

The accepted procedure, as outlined in the TMP is listed below;

• Prepare concept and consult with Local Authority/NZTA as applicable (This step can be omitted for simple activities)

• Develop draft SSTMP and submit to RCA for comments • Allow five/ten days (depending on complexity) for comments • Submit final SSTMP after receiving comments • Provide Traffic management Coordinator/STMS with SSTMP for set-out It is at the discretion of the audit team as to whether each step was carried out satisfactorily including the quality and timeliness of information. Points are to be allocated for non-conformance with the SSTMP development consultation procedure. A rating will be calculated for the assessment criteria. The rating system for the SSTMP development assesses each of the five steps listed above and allocates points appropriately.

Proforma sheets for the traffic management safety audit are located in Appendix <<<XX ) Consultant to enter appendix reference>>>.



Traffic – Implementation of Site Specific Traffic Management Plans (SSTMP’s)



Performance spectra Measure Fail Poor BAU Best Practice Outstanding Audit of Compliance with TMP and traffic control set out.

Dangerous. Poor level of traffic control set-out.

Average Audit score greater than or equal to 51

Needs Improvement. Inadequate level of traffic control set-out.

Average Audit score 37

Majority of traffic control set-out to an acceptable level.


Acceptable level of traffic control set-out on majority of sites, with some High Standard site.


High Standard of traffic control set-out on all sites.


KPI Score Where the average audit score = 0 the KPI is 100. Where the average audit score = 51 or more, the KPI is 0. An average process score between 0 and 51 will result in a KPI calculated using the following formula:

10051

1 xscoreauditAverage

KPI

−=

All Site Specific Traffic Management Plans (SSTMPs) active on a single day each month will be included in the monitoring programme. Each SSTMP will be assessed in terms of compliance with the implementation and operation procedures in the Traffic Management Plan (TMP ). An audit of each SSTMP will be undertaken by a two man team and identify the chain of events leading to the set-out of traffic control on site.

An audit will be undertaken for each SSTMP, covering the acceptability of the traffic control set-out. The set-out audit will follow the “Transfund New Zealand Revised Procedures for the Safety Audit of Temporary Traffic management of Worksites”, presented to industry in February 2002. The outcome of each site audit is a Site Condition Rating (SCR) which is used to categorise the level of set-out into one of the following ratings;

• High Standard • Acceptable • Needs Improvement • Dangerous Points are to be allocated for non-conformance with the SSTMP safety audit of the traffic control set-out. A rating will be calculated for the assessment criteria. The implementation rating follows the Transfund audit procedures and provides direct ranking for performance.

Proforma sheets for the traffic management safety audit are located in Appendix <<<XX ) Consultant to enter appendix reference>>>.



Time - Achievement of final completion date

Measurement Frequency Three Monthly

Review Team Consultant & Contractor’s Programme Manager

Performance spectra Measure Fail Poor BAU Best Practice Outstanding Comparison to Approved Base Programme at time of tender

Delivery significantly behind target completion date.

Delivery 180 days late

Delivery behind target completion date.

Delivery 90 days late

Delivery on target completion date.

Delivery on time

Delivery ahead of target completion date. Delivery 45 days early

Delivery significantly ahead of target completion date.

Delivery 90 days early

KPI Score Where Practical completion is 90 days or more before the target completion date the KPI is 100. Where Practical completion is the same date as the target completion date the KPI is 50. Where practical completion is between 90 days early, and on time the KPI shall be calculated using the following formula

+=80.1

90 earlydaysofnumberKPI

Where Practical completion is 180 days or more after the target completion date the KPI is 0. Where Practical completion is the same date as the target completion date the KPI is 50. Where practical completion is between 180 days late and on time the KPI shall be calculated using the following formula

−=6.3

)180( latedaysofnumberKPI

The Target completion date for this project is: <<<Consultant to enter Date>>

The target completion date is based on the project completion date at time of tender, with an allowance for risk. There will be no extensions to the Target completion date for any extensions of time awards or any other events such as storm events, wet weather delays or delays due to poor design and the like.

Interim KPM payments will be made by comparing the Contractor’s baseline programme with the forecast completion date. The contractor’s baseline programme will be updated and statused at the end of each quarter, showing the percentage completion of each activity and items that are finished. The programme will then generate a new expected completion date, which will be monitored against the target completion date established at time of tender

The final KPM score will be calculated solely based on the actual completion date compared with the target completion date at time of tender.



Stakeholders (Including Services) - Unplanned disruptions to utilities and their effects


Review Team Consultant and Contractor’s Named Representative

Performance spectra Measure Fail Poor BAU Best Practice Outstanding Number of unplanned service cuts resulting from contractor’s actions.

Catastrophic impacts on utility providers.

Major impacts on utility providers.

Reasonable impacts on utility providers.

Minor impact on utility providers.

No impact on utility providers.

Incidents per month 3+ severe and/or 5+ minor

2 severe and 0-4 minor

1 severe and 3 minor

1 severe and 0-2 minor






KPI Score 0 15 25 35 50 65 75 85 100

The Contractor shall establish a project wide incident register and reporting procedure.

All incidents that could have a potential effect on external parties are logged and investigated. The Consultant will use this system to track all unplanned outages of utility services over the life of the project.

Each incident report will identify the service damaged, date, circumstances surrounding the incident and the total number of hours that the service was unavailable for use.

At the end of each month, all the utility incident reports will be collated. The severity and the total hours of unplanned outages calculated and used to determine the contractors KPI score.

A severe incident is classified as either

i. Costing more than $10,000 to repair, or

ii. Affecting 4 or more utility customers, or

iii. The utility being out of order (and no alternative supply provided to the utility customer) for more than 8 hours.

A minor incident is one in which

i. The repair cost is less than $10,000, or

ii. 1-3 customers affected, or

iii. The service is out of order for less than 8 hours. If the service takes more than 8 hours to repair, but a suitable alternative utility is provided within 8 hours, the incident will be classified as minor.

Planned utility diversions are not included in assessing the KPI.



Stakeholders (Including Services) - Key stakeholder satisfaction


Review Team Consultant

Performance spectra Measure Fail Poor BAU Best Practice Outstanding Survey of key stakeholders relationship with the Contractor.

Overall result of Fail

Average Survey Score 0

Overall result of Poor


Overall result of Business as Usual


Overall result of Best Practice


Overall result of Outstanding


KPI Score Where the average satisfaction survey score = 0 the KPI is 0. Where the average satisfaction survey score = 4, the KPI is100. An average satisfaction survey score between 0 and 4 will result in a KPI calculated using the following formula:

1004

xscoresurveyonsatisfactiAverage

KPI

=

Key Stakeholder Satisfaction will be measured by a regular survey of primary contacts within key stakeholder organisations.

The Consultant, NZTA and Contractor shall develop a list of Key stakeholder contacts. It is anticipated the number of key stakeholder organisations will be less than 20.

The survey will target information on the contractor’s relationship with the Key Stakeholders and whether the Stakeholder’s objectives for the project are being met.

The Consultant will establish a purpose made survey form, in consultation with the Contractor. The key aspect of the survey is that the responses will directly relate to the contractor’s performance spectra, reducing subjectivity in interpreting responses. Proforma questionnaire is located in Appendix <<<XX ) Consultant to enter appendix reference>>>.

The data received from the Key Stakeholder survey will be analysed to indicate:

• Contractor’s performance in particular areas (overall average result for each question). • Contractor’s performance in relation to particular Stakeholders (overall response for each stakeholder. • Contractor’s performance overall (overall result for all questions and Stakeholders). The result for this KPI will be based on the Contractor’s performance overall. The other information will be used to improve our services to key stakeholders

Key Stake Holders Name Organisation Email Telephone Postal address



Stakeholders (Including Services) - Community Interaction: response time to all external communications



Performance spectra Measure Fail Poor BAU Best Practice Outstanding

Response time to all external communication,

Response more than 5 days late

Response 2 to 5 days late.

Response on time. Response between 2 days early and on time.

Response more than 2 days early.

KPI Score Where the average response time is 2 days or more before the “Target Response Time” (see below) the KPI is 100. Where the average response time is the same date as the “Target Response Time” (see below) the KPI is 50. Where the average response time is between 2 days early, and on time the KPI shall be calculated using the following formula:

+=04.0

2 earlydaystimeresponseaverageKPI

Where the average response time is 5 days or more after the “Target Response Time” (see below) the KPI is 0. Where the average response time is the same date as the “Target Response Time” (see below) the KPI is 50. Where the average response time is between 5 days late, and on time the KPI shall be calculated using the following formula:

−=1.0

)5( latedaystimeresponseaverageKPI

Response time to all external communications:

The Contractor shall establish a Communications Database. The details of all external correspondence will be logged in the database, including date received, action required, date action required and actual date of action. This database will be used to determine and report response times to external communications. From this information, the difference between the date action required and the actual date of action will be determined (response lag). An average response lag for all completed actions to date will then be determined. The response lag data will be generated by a reporting function within the Communications Database.

A schedule of response times to different requests/issues will be established and used as the basis for determining the date action is required. The reason response lag is being considered rather than average response time is that different types of issues, requests for information etc will have different response times associated with them. Response lag allows assessment of whether a response was made on time, rather than how quickly the contractor responded.

The following table details the suggested Target Response Time Frame. This table may be updated as more current information become available following periodic audit / survey on Stakeholder Management and participants.

Suggested Target Response Time Frame

Description of Action Required Target Response Time

Provision of general information already available (e.g. published newsletters, fliers etc) 2 working days

Provision of technical information already available (e.g. detailed drawings) 2 working days

Return response by Contractor required (e.g. phone call, e-mail) 5 working days

Provision of technical information needing preparation (e.g. detailed drawings) 10 working days

Provision of information not currently available but under preparation (e.g. fliers relating to specific issue)

Programmed due date



Stakeholders (Including Services) - Community Interaction: Number of people through information centre




Number of people through information centre per month

Few people through information centre.

0 people per month

Some use of the information centre

25 people per month

People using the information centre most days

50 people per month

Several people using the information centre most days

75 people per month

Significant use of information centre

100+ people per month

KPI Score Where the average number of people through the information centre is 100 or more the KPI is 100. Where the number of people through the information centre is between 0 and 100, the KPI will be calculated using the following formula: monthperCentrenInformatiothroughofpeoplenumberAverageKPI =

Response No. of people through information centre:

The number of people through the Public Information Centre will be monitored by two mechanisms. Firstly, a Visitors Book will be established and all visitors will be encouraged to write in the book. However, as some people are reluctant to write in Visitors Book, the Database Administrator will keep an independent log. The Visitors Book and log will be correlated monthly to determine the total number of people through the information centre. The average number per month over the duration of the project will be the KPI result.



Environment - Overall Environmental Compliance


Review Team Consultant’s Environmental Manager

Performance spectra Measure Fail Poor BAU Best Practice Outstanding Regional Council’s monitoring costs as billed to NZTA. Estimated cost for this contract $XX,000

More than 200% the Regional Council’s estimated cost for this contract

150% - 200% of the Regional Council’s estimated cost for this contract

110% - 150% of the Regional Council’s estimated cost for this contract

85% to 110% of the Regional Council’s estimated cost for this contract

Less than 85% of the Regional Council’s estimated cost for this contract

KPI Score Where Regional council environmental monitoring costs are 15% or more below the regional council’s estimated monitoring costs for this contract the KPI is 100. Where Regional council environmental monitoring costs are 10% over the regional council’s estimated monitoring costs for this contract the KPI is 50. Where Regional council environmental monitoring costs are between 15% below and 10% over the estimated monitoring costs then the KPI shall be calculated using the following formula:

−=

50.0

'Re)(%35 BudgetsCouncilgionaloverorunderKPI

Note: eg if expenditure 15% under regional council estimate KPI = ((35+15)/0.50). if expenditure equals regional council estimate KPI = ((35-0)/0.50). if expenditure 10% over regional council estimate KPI = ((35-10)/0.50)

Where Regional council environmental monitoring costs are 100% or more above the regional council’s estimated monitoring costs for this contract the KPI is 0. Where Regional council environmental monitoring costs are 10% over the regional council’s estimated monitoring costs for this contract the KPI is 50. Where Regional council environmental monitoring costs are between 100% over and 10% over the estimated monitoring costs then the KPI shall be calculated using the following formula:

−=80.1

)'Re%100( BudgetsCouncilgionaloverKPI

The environmental KPM utilises the regional council’s invoices to NZTA, and hence the final regional council costs as the measure of success.

The review team will evaluate the invoices and compare these with the regional council monitoring estimate derived during the design phase. Only the Regional Council’s costs for erosion and sediment control monitoring on site and assessment / approvals of the erosion and sediment control plans (ESCPs) will be included within this performance assessment. This therefore excludes:

• Consent processing; • Archaeological monitoring (response to unknown findings); • Monthly liaison and co-ordination etc costs. Monthly co-ordination meeting will be held with the Regional Council to anticipate likely issues. The contractor will accompany, where possible, the Regional Council’s erosion and sediment control inspections

The regional council’s monitoring estimate derived during the design phase for this contract is $XX,000

The regional council’s budget and performance measures above are based on typical monitoring costs for this type of project, with an allowance for risk. There will be no increases to the regional council’s budget for any reason whatsoever.

The forecast expenditure to practical completion (FEPC) will be updated and statused at the end of each quarter, showing the expenditure to date and the FEPC.

Interim KPM payments will be made by comparing the regional councils FEPC with the regional council’s monitoring estimate established during the design phase. The final KPM score will be calculated solely based on the actual expenditure for monitoring costs, as defined above, compared with the estimate for monitoring costs derived during the design phase.



Health and Safety - Implementation of Health and Safety Delivery Plan

Measurement Frequency

Monthly

Review Team Consultant and Contractor’s Safety Manager


On-site safety rating review. Percentage compliance against questionnaire.

Compliance against 70% of the applicable activities





KPI Score Where the health and safety questionnaire % compliance score = 100% the KPI is 100. Where the health and safety questionnaire % compliance score = 70% or lower the KPI is 0. A health and safety questionnaire % compliance score between 70% and 100% will result in a KPI calculated using the following formula

−=30.0

)70scorecompliancesafetyandHealthKPI

The project site will be inspected and reviewed by the review team for 3-4 hours, using a pre-prepared questionnaire and checksheet that identifies over 300 items that need to be verified as being completed. This form focuses both on the safeness of the site as well as key process that assure that the H&S obligations are being met. The checksheet will be tailored to the specific nature of this project.

The percentage of compliance will then be calculated from the total possible responses.

Maintenance of safety throughout the project is an absolute requirement. As such, the following information will not be linked to the risk and reward dollars. NZTA wish to avoid a fiscal incentive to conceal safety issues. The following statistics will be monitored by the Consultant, but will not form part of the Contracor’s payment under this incentive scheme

• Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR). A LTI is defined as A disabling injury. A work injury that results in death, permanent disability, or inability of the injured worker to return to work on the day following the injury. LTIFR is the number of LTI’s per 200,000 man-hours worked

• Accident Severity Rate (AccSR). AccSR is defined as the number of manhours lost to LTI’s per 200,000 man-hours worked.

This information shall be gathered in the following manner: Managers, Project Engineers, Superintendents and Supervisors are asked for:

• No. of lost time injuries arising during the month • No. of hours employees worked for the month on the site • No. of hours sub-contractors worked for the month on the site • No. of hours sub-Consultants worked for the month on the site All information is then transferred to the DATA page of the spreadsheet – “A HSE Template” located in Appendix <<<XX ) Consultant to enter appendix reference>>>



Quality and Aesthetics - Quality achievement & overall look of the site




Site inspection of random site areas against 12 attributes

Products disfigured and/or in a poor state of operation. Overall site looks like a tip, unloved and presents a safety hazard

Average score = 0

Products in poor state and/or potential to be blamed for operational issues. Overall site untidy, no pride in the look of the site and potential for safety issues to arise

Average score =1

Defects to products or operational requirements not hard to find. Overall site tidy but frequent occasions of litter, detritus, spoil etc. Site team unaware of look

Average score =2

Occasional defect to products and/or isolated operational problems. Site very tidy, but odd area needs improvement and/or response time has not been meet. Good pride in overall look

Average score =3

Products as good as the day they were commissioned and in excellent operational condition. Site clean, tidy, ordered and a pleasure to the eye. Site team happy to point out the performance Average score =4

KPI Score Where the average score = 4 the KPI is 100. Where the average process score = 0, the KPI is 0. An average score between 0 and 4 will result in a KPI calculated using the following formula:

1004

xscoreAverage

KPI

=

The site will be divided up into six segments as follows:

1. Describe area of site to be assessed






Each month a dice will be rolled to determine the segment which will be subject to audit.

The audit will consist of a visual inspection of the following attributes in the segment: Concrete finish, Asphalt finish, Sediment load in jute sacking, Road marking and sign clarity, Installation quality of road furniture, Site wide natural environment, Site wide construction environment , Graffiti free, Surface detritus, Appearance of construction plant, Health of living things, Modified surfaces

The inspections will be based on the following methodology and rating table. It is anticipated that over time a photo library will be developed to assist with the scoring. In each segment the audit team shall:

a. Select a work area in the segment

b. Mark attributes for that work area; and

c. Repeat

(note : Some attributes require selection of a work area only relevant to one attribute)

Proforma scales and measurement sheets for the Quality and Aesthetics audit are located in Appendix <<<XX ) Consultant to enter appendix reference>>>.


Appendices

SM031 Appendix A does not have a proforma Appendices section. The following shall be insert into the appropriate section in the Appendices.

When using SM031 Appendix B3 insert the following new Appendix N (ie last appendix in the proforma document).


Appendix N

Project Incentive Scheme

N1 Key Performance Measure Assessment Report - Traffic

N2 Traffic Management Plans Development Site Specific Rating Form

N3 Traffic Management Implementation Site Condition Rating Form

N4 Key Performance Measure Assessment Report - Time

N5 Key Performance Measure Assessment Report - Stakeholders

N6 Key Stakeholder Survey

N7 Key Performance Measure Assessment Report - Environmental

N8 Key Performance Measure Assessment Report – Health and Safety

N9 Health and Safety Site Assessment Report

N10 Quality and Aesthetics Assessment Report

N11 Overall Performance Score Calculation Sheet


KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURE ASSESSMENT REPORT

Key Performance Measure: Traffic Period of Review:

Key Performance Indicator Frequency of Assessment

Date of Review:

Review Team File reference

Development of TMP Monthly <<Names>>

Implementation of TMP Monthly <<Names>>

Summary of Review Findings <<Guidance Note: report to summarise findings and detail issues requiring attention for each TMP in operation on the day the audit was carried out>>

Site Condition Rating The following table summarises the site condition rating of all SSTMP’s under development, or in operation on the Review Date above. Audit scores have been transferred from the rating forms

Item SSTMP’s Active or under development on Review Date

SSTMP Development Score

SSTMP Implementation Score (Transfund Score )

1 <<<Add additional rows as required>>



Total Number of Sites Measured

Average

Assessment of Performance: (measured against the approved KPI spectrum)

The assessment of the procedural compliance on the development of new site specific traffic management plans (SSTMP’s) KPI resulted in an overall score of <<Insert Number>>> which equates to <<<Outstanding/Best practice/Business as Usual/Poor/Fail – delete as appropriate>>.

The overall assessment of the implementation of SSTMP’s KPI based on the site condition rating forms is <<Insert Number>>> which equates to <<<Outstanding/Best practice/Business as Usual/Poor/Fail – delete as appropriate>>.

The weighting given to each KPI was used to create an overall rating for the Traffic Key Performance Measure in the month of (Tick the appropriate box/boxes)

Outstanding Best Practice Business as Usual Poor Fail

Signed: Signed:


Traffic Management Plans Development Site Specific Rating Form (to be completed for each SSTMP in development)

Auditor Name Project Name

Qualification Activity <<Name of TMP eg SH1 tie in North end>>

Rego No. RCA NZ Transport Agency

Contractor Name

Standard (Delete as appropriate)

Outstanding Best Practice

Business as usual

Poor Fail

STMS Score(Delete as appropriate) 0.00-1.00 1.01-3.00 3.01-5.00 5.01-7.00 7.01+

Qualification Audit Result (SCR) <<<Score and Standard>>>

Rego No. Actions Taken

TMP Sighted Yes / No Date & Time

Assessment of Compliance with SSTMP Development procedure (to be completed for each SSTMP in development)

Activity Points Tally Box

No Consultation = 2 points

Reasonable Consultation = 1 point

Full Consultation = 0 point

Preparation of Concept and Consultation with Key Stakeholders for SSTMP

Not Applicable = 1 point

No draft to ACC= 1 point Develop draft SSTMP and submit to <<Identify other bodies who need to be consulted, eg Consultant, Auckalnd City Council (ACC) etc. >>> for comments draft to ACC= 0 point

No Time Provided = 3 points

Minimal Time (2-4 days) = 2 points

Adequate Time (5-10 days) = 1 points

Provide Consultant/ACC time to review and comment on SSTMP

Greater than required (>10 days) = 0 point

Not Submitted = 2 points

Submitted ingnoring comments = 1 point

Submit final SSTMP after receiving comments

Submitted consideringcomments = 0 point

SSTMP not provided to STMS = 1 point Provide Traffic management Coordinator / STMS with SSTMP for set out SSTMP provided to STMS = 0 point

Sub Total for TMP Name

SPECTRA RATING - Fail 7+, Poor = 5 to 7, BAU = 3 to 5, Best Practice = 1 to 3, Outstanding = <1


Traffic Management Implementation Site Condition Rating Form (to be completed for each SSTMP in operation)

Consultant (Name) Project Name Contractor Name Activity <<Name of TMP eg SH1 tie in North end>> STMS (Name) RCA NZ Transport Agency Qualification Action Taken Rego No. Standard

(Delete as appropriate) High Standard

Acceptable Needs Improvement

Dangerous

TMP Sighted Yes / No Transfund Score 0 – 10 11 – 25 26 – 50 51+ Audit Date & Time Audit Result (SCR) <<KPI Assessment Rating and Standard>>

Signs Points Tally Box Total Missing (including side road) 5 for each sign Spacing (too close / far) 2 for each sign Not visible 3 for each sign Condition marginal 1 for each sign Condition unacceptable 4 for each sign Order incorrect 2 for each set of signs out of order Permanent signs not covered 2 for each sign Unapproved signs used / too small 4 for each sign Sign on wrong side 2 for each sign Sign too low 1 for each sign Speed restriction / derestriction not appropriate / inconsistent

5 for each occasion

Speed limit not correctly aligned 2 for each occasion Sign not upright 1 for each sign Non-compliant support 2 for each support Wrong sign 5 for each sign Lateral location 1 for each sign Subtotal

Delineation Devices Points Tally Box Total Missing 30 where delineation is missing and required Tapers too short 5 for each taper Spacing in tapers 3 for each taper where spacing too great to be effective Spacing in lanes 2 where spacing in lanes / around work area is too great Condition marginal 1 for each device where classified in marginal condition Condition unacceptable 3 for each device where classified in unacceptable condition Using non approved device 4 for each non approved device Used incorrectly 2 for each device Road marking incorrect 5 where not adjusted at long term sites on level 2 or 3 roads Chicane 10 for each missing or installed incorrectly Subtotal

Miscellaneous Points Tally Box Total Working in live lanes 20 for each occasion Flashing beacons not used / ineffective 1 for each vehicle No provision for pedestrians 10 where no provision made and required No provision for cyclists 5 where no provision made and required Parking/stopping features not relocated 5 where relocation of feature is required but has not been made Safety (long) zone compromised 2 for unacceptable or no safety zone Safety (lateral) zone compromised 2 for unacceptable or no safety zone High visibility garment not worn 5 for each individual High visibility garment marginal 3 for each garment classified in marginal condition High visibility garment unacceptable 5 for each garment classified in unacceptable condition Excavation not protected 10 for excavation not protected by acceptable method VMS message incorrect 10 for displaying incorrect information Barrier defectss 10 for each incorrect or missing barrier component Subtotal Mobile and Semi Static Operations Points Tally Box Total Tail pilot vehicle omitted 20 for missing or incorrect location Lead pilot vehicle omitted 20 for missing or incorrect location Shadow vehicle omitted 20 for missing or incorrect location Vehicle mounted signs 5 for missing or incorrect signs TMA missing 20 for TMA missing when required TMA non-compliant 5 for TMA in use but not of acceptable standard Arrow board missing 20 for arrow board missing when required Arrow board message 20 for no message or incorrect message Subtotal TOTAL



Key Performance Measure: Time Period of Review:


Date of Review:


Contract Completion Date Achievement Three Monthly <<Names>>

Summary of Review Findings <<Guidance Note: report to summarise contractor’s progress to date, and identify activities which are ahead or behind programme.>>

Contract Progress Rating The following table summarises the contractor’s progress against the agreed project completion date(s)

Item Completion Date Contractual Date

Actual Date (Forecast date if interim assessment)

Days Delay or Ahead of Programme

1 Contract Completion Date

2 Separable Portion A

3 Separable Portion B


The assessment of the Time KPI resulted in an overall forecast completion XX days ahead of/behind programme.

<<Guidance Note: Where there are separable portions insert the following>>: The weighting given to each KPI was used to create an overall rating for the Time Key Performance Measure in the month to <<<Outstanding/Best practice/Business as Usual/Poor/Fail – delete as appropriate>>.

This equates to a KPM result of (Tick the appropriate box/boxes)


Signed: Signed:



Key Performance Measure: Stakeholders (including services) Period of Review:


Date of Review:


Disruption to Utility Operators Monthly <<Names>>

Community Interaction Monthly <<Names>> Key Stakeholder Satisfaction Three Monthly <<Name>>

Summary of Review Findings

Disruption to Utility Companies The following table summarises the contractor’s unplanned disruption to utility services, and their effects. A severe incident is classified as either costing more than $10,000 to repair, or affecting 4 or more utility customers, or the utility being out of order for more than 6 hours. Planned utility diversions are not included in assessing the KPI.

Item Incident Date

Utility Company

Location Description (include details surrounding the outage, the service damaged, number of hours the service was unavailable for use)

Impact (Severe /Minor)

1

2

Summary of Performance Disruption to Utility Companies Outstanding Best Practice BAU Poor Fail

Community Interaction The following table summarises the average delay in responding to all external communications

Average response lag (generated from contractor’s communication database)

Summary of Performance Community Interaction: External communication Outstanding Best Practice BAU Poor Fail

The following table summarises the number of members of the public who have visited the information centre, and either signed the visitor’s book, or from the data supervisors independent log of site visitors.

Total number of people through information centre since project commencement Average number of people through information centre per month since project commencement

Summary of Performance Community Interaction: Information Centre Outstanding Best Practice BAU Poor Fail

Key Stakeholder Satisfaction (To be completed 3 monthly) The following table summarises the contractor’s overall performance result from the key stakeholder satisfaction survey.

Number of Questionnaires Issued Number of Replies received Average Score To calculate the average score total the number of marks for each questionnaire, where fail score 0; poor score 1; BAU score 2; Best Practice score 3; Outstanding score 4. then divide by the number of ticks. Repeat for each questionnaire to generate the average score.

Action Required

Assessment of Performance: (measured against the approved KPI spectrum) The assessment of the disruption to utility companies KPI resulted in an overall result of: <<Enter Result BAU etc>>. The assessment of the community interaction (external communication) KPI resulted in an overall result of: BAU etc. The assessment of the community interaction (Information Centre) KPI resulted in an overall result of BAU etc. The assessment of the key stakeholder satisfaction KPI either: was not required this month, or: resulted in an overall result of Outstanding/Best practice/Business as Usual/Poor/Fail – delete as appropriate. The weighting given to each KPI was used to create an overall rating for the Stakeholder Key Performance Measure in the month of (Tick the appropriate box/boxes)


Signed: Signed:


The success of the <<<Project Name (Project Acronym)>> is not being measured by cost alone. Additional key performance areas for the project are: Traffic Management, Time to Complete, Stakeholder Management, Environmental Management and Health and Safety.

A survey of key stakeholders for the <<<Project Acronym>> is being undertaken to gain an indication of performance in relation to Stakeholder Management. We would appreciate it if you would take time to answer the questions given below. The results of the survey will be used to improve the service <<<Contractor Name >> and NZTA provides and relationships with key stakeholders. We intend to undertake the survey on a 3 monthly basis.

The questions below ask you to rate the contractor’s performance in comparison to the performance you typically experience from organisations undertaking projects of a similar nature. A guide to the ratings is:

• Fail: Performance amongst the worst you have experienced

• Poor: Performance below most organisations you deal with

• Business As Usual (BAU): Performance about the same as most organisations you deal with

• Best Practice: Performance above most organisations you deal with

• Outstanding: Performance amongst the best you have experienced

Fail Poor BAU Best Practice Outstanding

1. How would you rate the contractor’s performance in updating you on project progress and activities?

��

2. How would you rate the quality of information the contractor has provided you?

��

3. How would you rate the timeliness of information the contractor has provided you?

��

4. How would you rate the contractor’s performance in acknowledging issues you have raised in relation to the project?

��

5. How would you rate the contractor’s performance in following up on issues you have raised in relation to the project?

��

6. How would you rate the contractor’s approachability?

��

7. How would you rate the ability to contact the contractor?

��

8. How would you rate the contractor’s performance overall?

��

9. How would you rate the wider project performance overall?

��

10. Key Stakeholder’s Name (Optional)

We would appreciate receiving any additional comments you may have, so please feel free to write on the back of this form

Name (Optional)

Thank you for participating in the survey.



Key Performance Measure: Environmental Period of Review:


Date of Review:


Overall Environmental Compliance Three Monthly <<Names>>

Summary of Review Findings <<Guidance Note: report to summarise total expenditure for monitoring costs, compared with the initial budget>>

Regional Council Budget for Compliance Monitoring Costs $

Total Cost to date (From regional council invoices to NZTA): $

Projected Final Compliance Monitoring Cost $

Forecast % expenditure under or over Budget %


The assessment of the Environmental compliance KPI resulted in an overall forecast final expenditure XX% <<Consultant to complete>>> of the regional council’s initial budget.



Signed: Signed:



Key Performance Measure: Health and Safety Period of Review:


Date of Review:


Implementation of Health and safety delivery plan

Monthly <<Names>>

Summary of Review Findings <<Guidance Note: report to summarise findings of the safety audit.>>

Action List

The following items were identified in the health and safety audit, and require attention Item Description (description of hazard and remedial action required) Person

Responsible Action Date

Record Required

1

2

3

4

5


The assessment of the Health and Safety KPI resulted in an overall health and safety score of XX% <<Consultant to complete>>>.



Signed: Signed: