Brent Council’s Performance Report on Willesden PFI Contract 

Background 

For some time I prompted Brent Council for a report on the Private Finance Initiative contract awarded to a consortium led by LC and which left LC in charge of a brand new Willesden Sports Centre, opened to the public in November 2007. Finally, a paper copy of a report of was received toward the end of July 2008. Because it does not appear on Brent Council’s website and is 13 pages long, you will not have the chance to read the full document yourself, which is what I would have preferred. 

Unlike any other council report that I have seen, this PFI report was not dated, did not make clear who wrote it or for whom it was produced. A further enquiry to Brent Leisure produced this reply.

“The report was written in May 2008 by the client team … and presented by the client officers to a group of Senior officers including the Director of Environment and Culture, the assistant directors within Environment and Culture, strategic HR manager, deputy head of procurement and the joint head of contracts from the Councils legal and democratic services team at the end of May. This report was not presented to Members but we will be conducting a similar exercise and presenting a report to a contracts panel in November 2008 which will include member representation.” 

No explanation was received as to why Councillors are not yet reviewing such an expensive contract, not least when they have already expressed dissatisfaction with the new contract awarded to LC for Vale Farm. There is talk of a report for Councillors in November but, based on past experience, it may well take much longer. 

The report includes no mention of the snagging problems with McAlpine (see below), not only the builder but a member of the consortium for the contract. Which makes one wonder, what else was not mentoned? PB

Report Content 

The report claims that the costs of running the new centre are very similar to the costs for the old but the basis of comparison is not given. Are we talking about equivalent facilities? And of course the cost of running an old centre, especially if maintenance was cut back at times, will be much higher than for a brand new complex. 

“90% of users are satisfied with the service however, officers are in agreement that there are a few areas of service that have room for improvement such as customer service. However compared to the sheer number of users complaints are relatively low and equates to only 1 complaint per 6,975 visits. The management is slow in providing annual plans which are not linked to the payment mechanism and this is an area that needs to improve. They were slow in delivering the exercise referral scheme. However, this is part due to their partnership with the PCT… ”
But what did the PCT fail to do? Did the PCT fail? 

The number of cutomer complaints is well known to be a doubtful indicator of dissatisfaction. The extent to which people complain depends on factors such as believing it will make any difference, how easy it is to make a complaint, and not wishing to have to deal with people against whom they have complained.  Moreover, many comments left in the Customer Feedback Diary, while clearly compaints, are not counted as complaints.

“Areas of poorer performance in 2007: Cleanliness in the changing areas, Value for money of food and drink, Water quality in swimming pool, Number of people in the pool, Helpfulness of other staff.” Presumably as opposed to coaches and instructors, who were listed as strengths. 

Most common complaints among the 110 received from 75 people from November 06 to April 08

But, note, unfavourable comments in the feedback diary are not included in these complaints. 

·         Bookings/availability 22

·         Staff / customer care 14

·         Pool water temperature / quality 11

·         Building design 10

·         Programme 9

·         Security 7

·         Women Only Sessions 6

·         Customer Behaviour 6

·         Cold Showers 5

·         Crèche 5

 Curiously, Changing Room Cleanliness had only 1 against it yet in the summary this was listed as an area of “poor performance”. It seems the number of formal complaints is not the most reliable indicator of what bugs people. It’s a shame there is no attempt to summarise the feedback diary comments. 

The report refers to Customer Forums but does not say how many meetings, the numbers attending or directly include any comments from the forum or its members. 

National Bench Marking Survey Results - least satisfactory scores (Based on 345 respondents in May 2007) 

·         Quality of food and drinks 38% not satisfied

·         Ease of booking 26%

·         Helpfulness of Other Staff 24%

·         Helpfulness of Reception Staff 23%

·         Cleanliness of Changing Areas 22%   /  Cleanliness in Activity Spaces 15%

·         Water Quality in Pool 11%

 Default Payments 

The report reveals that LC have made a number of default payments but the amounts paid are not given. How can the public be sure the penalties are an effective deterrent, especially when LC is saving six months’ salary? Defaults were issued for: 

 *Lifecycle and Programmed Maintenance -  “During the period August to October not all the Planned Preventative Maintenance for that period were completed by a subcontractor"

*“Unfortunately Leisure Connection did not have a Community Liaison Manager in post for six months of the year.”  No reason for the prolonged absence is included in the report. Was the job even advertised or was this post frozen by LC as part of its squeeze on costs?

     *Slow development of the GP Exercise Referral Scheme. If the PCT was at fault, as earlier suggested, why penalise LC? 

*Non-availability of the building on five occasions

§  late opening,

§  learner pool closed due to high chlorine levels

§  slow removal of graffiti

§  defective air conditioning

 During torrential rain a “couple of inches of water” entered the building. The penalty was for failing to submit proposals on time to mitigate further flooding problems. But the design of a building that floods in its first year raises some questions.  PB