Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority

Best Value Steering Group

Item

10 September 2001

Best Value Reviews and Scoping Studies: Progress Report

Report of the Chief Fire Officer

Contact:

SDO Philip Webb, Quality and Audit Manager

Tel: 023 8070 3999 Ext 206

1

Introduction

1.1

This report sets out progress on the current programme of Best Value reviews. For the benefit of new members, the information included on this occasion is more detailed than will be provided in future monitoring reports.

1.2

Members will be aware that, in response to the District Auditor's recommendations, it was agreed that the programme of reviews will be re-considered with the aim of making future Best Value reviews more strategic in nature. As a consequence, several of the reviews reported on below will become `Best Value Scoping Studies'. Recommendations for a revised programme of reviews covering the five years 2002/3 to 2006/7 will be presented to the next meeting of the Group.

1.3

To make future updating easier, the progress reports for each review are set out as separate appendices:

Appendix A

Mobilising Policy

Appendix B

Control and Communications

Appendix C

Property Services

Appendix D

Driver Training

Appendix E

Catering

Appendix F

Procurement

2

European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998

2.1

The proposals within this report are compatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Group notes the various progress reports and endorses the action taken on completed reviews where appropriate.

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose the facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of the report.

· Mobilising Policy - Final report to Service Management

Team

· Driver Training - Final report to Service Management

Team

NB The list excludes:

1 Published works

2 Documents that disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act

Dir-fin BVSG 10 Sept 01 31/8/01

Appendix A

MOBILISING POLICY (BEST VALUE SCOPING STUDY)

Commenced: 17 May 2000

Completed: 2 April 2001

Review Team

SDO Long

Lead Officer

SDO Webb

Quality and Audit

PFCO Cowmeadow

Fire Control

ADO Wittcomb

C Division Fire Safety

Allan Craven

Financial Services Manager

Scope of the Study

The scope of the review was established as follows:

*

To challenge current mobilising policies for officer and appliance attendance to incidents with specific regard to standard pre-determined attendances (PDAs).

*

To compare these policies with a sample of other Home Office family group (Group 4) members (Essex, Lancashire, Kent, Avon and Surrey) who have a similar profile of risk, size, number of retained and wholetime staff.

*

To challenge HFRS mobilising policy of special appliances stages of make-ups.

*

To consult relevant stakeholders on their views on mobilising policy. Consultees to include Station Commanders, Control staff, Link Officers and Divisional Officers (Operations).

Review Process

IS THE SERVICE NEEDED?

Mobilisation of resources is a fundamental process towards achieving the correct weight and speed of attack for a given set of circumstances. These circumstances relate to risk categorisation which is itself a complex review of individual buildings which taking into account location, size, number of floors, construction and occupancy etc.

Mobilising practice involves movement of operational equipment, both mobile (normally held in fire engines) and non-mobile resources (normally held at fire stations but not routinely carried on fire engines). In addition officers are also routinely mobilised to incidents.

IDENTIFY POTENTIAL PROVIDERS

There is no realistic scope for third-party involvement in HFRS mobilising policy and procedures. Third party involvement is limited to practical methods of data/information capture and transmission. This aspect is being examined as part of the Control and Communications Best Value Review.

IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE COMPARATORS AND OBTAIN COMPARATIVE DATA/INFORMATION

When considering the type and scale of HFRS mobilisation, the opportunity was taken to compare the performance of the HFRS with other fire brigades from the CACFOA (Group 4) Family Group

The brigades (listed above) were consulted to ascertain their pre-determined, first attendance, policies for a range of incidents (the professional judgement of the team was used to identify the PDAs for consideration from the full HFRS listing).

Outcomes

As a result of this analysis the following amendments to mobilising policies were adopted by the Service Management Team.

PRE-DETERMINED ATTENDANCES

Incident Type

Existing PDA

Revised PDA

AFA normal properties

1 pump

1 pump (trialled for 6 months for statistical purposes to confirm whether an enhanced PDA should be mobilised)

Lift rescues

1 pump

2 pumps

Lift (persons trapped in machinery)

1 pump (WrL) and SEU

2 pumps (1 WrL) and SEU

Incident Type

Existing PDA

Revised PDA

Persons trapped in machinery

1 pump (WrL) and SEU

2 pumps (1 WrL) and SEU

Thatched roof fires

4 pumps and SEU

4 pumps, MRV and WrC

Road traffic accidents (persons trapped)

1 WrL

2 pumps (1 WrL)

OFFICER MOBILISATION

The review determined that there is no requirement to change the current level/scale of officer mobilisation. However, the following criteria has been agreed by Service Management Team.

The nearest officer will be mobilised for all incidents attracting an officer attendance.

For flooding calls from the public where water is affecting the electrical supply, only an officer will initially be mobilised.

An officer will be mobilised for all calls where a pump proceeds to an incident with 3 riders. This will be for audit purposes.

The following amendments are made to the list of officer mobilisation:

Number of Pumps

Officer Attendance

Make pumps 3

Nearest officer

Make pumps 9

Minimum of 5 officers (SDO/DCO/CFO Oic)

Make pumps 10+

Minimum of 5 officers (SDO/DCO/CFO Oic) (10 pumps) 11 pumps - 6 officers, then 1 officer for each additional 2 pumps

RECOMMENDATION

That the revisions made to Mobilising Policy be noted.

CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS

(BEST VALUE REVIEW)

Appendix B

Duration of review

Commenced 9 July 2000

Date for completion: 30 October 2001

Review Team

DCFO House

DCFO Operations and Training

SDO Long

SDO Operations

SDO Webb

SDO Quality and Audit

PFCO Cowmeadow

Principal Fire Control Officer

CO Bates

Control Officer

Mrs Lambert

Finance and Office Services Manager

StnO Hamm

Station Officer St Marys

Mr P Turner

IS Engineer

Co-opted members

DO Keith Weller

DO Quality and Audit

GFCO Reynolds-Smith

Group Fire Control Officer

Scope of Study

*

Examine cost comparisons of control rooms

*

Identify options for providing Best Value for operating a control room

*

Examine communications and control systems and procedures in Hampshire

*

Identify functions carried out by other fire brigade control rooms

*

Identify areas for performance improvements to the public other organisations and the HFRS

*

Explore collaboration opportunities with other fire brigades

Review Process

The starting point was to establish the cost of operating HFRS's fire control: deciding what to include and what to exclude. The following items were included: costs of call taking/handling/mobilising; control communications equipment provision and maintenance.

The fire service radio scheme was included and is part of a collaborative project across the CACFOA South East Region.

It was decided to restrict both comparison and competition investigations to other fire brigades in line with the consultants (Mott MacDonald) guidelines.

A full viability study was conducted with the Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service (IOW) for Hampshire to carry out the control function for both authorities. This would have been an advantage in cost terms to IOW but was rejected by its full Council earlier this year.

Other authorities were approached, but there was insufficient enthusiasm to make follow-up worthwhile.

A full set of consultation exercises were carried out to assess user satisfaction with the service delivered by Control and to identify what improvements could be made.

Current Findings

It was found very early in the process that deficiencies in performance management systems and procedures either precluded or at best made difficult the task of comparing our performance against other brigades or identifying how we were performing against our own aims. These deficiencies are being remedied but will take time and resources to achieve a full set of performance figures and procedures.

Specific HFRS performance targets need to be set

Auditing and staff monitoring at regular intervals

A quarterly report to SMT on performance with effect from April 2001

Comparative control room staffing figures show that Hampshire is well below that suggested by the national control staffing formula. A bid to increase staffing by 1 person per watch will be made to the Authority.

A revised system to speed-up the replacement of staff is to be introduced.

Planned replacements of hardware and software systems to keep the Control Room operating at optimum efficiency are to be costed and budgetted for.

RECOMMENDATION

That progress and current findings be noted.

PROPERTY SERVICES (BEST VALUE SCOPING STUDY)

Appendix C

Duration of review

Commenced 10 July 2001

Due for completion: October 2001

Review Team

Mr David Howells

Director of Corporate Services

Mr Keith Weller

DO Quality and Audit

Mr Graham Starke

Property Services Manager

Mrs Trudie Smith

Secretary to CFO

Scope of Study

*

Identification of and description of assets in financial terms.

*

Examine cost-effectiveness of existing contracts and service level agreements - including those for professional property advice - and the management of contracts. This is a service currently provided by Hampshire County Council.

*

The in-house service provided by Service's own staff.

*

Direct labour provided by Service's staff.

*

Contract cleaning and grounds maintenance.

*

The cost-effectiveness of self-help schemes.

*

Selection, appointment and performance of contractors (both those appointed by HCC and those engaged directly).

*

Payment arrangements for utility services.

Review Process

This review is at a very early stage and the scope may be refined. Information is being collected to determine "where we are now?" A diagnostic questionnaire is being used.

Property Services will be examined under the four C's of best value, namely challenge, compare, consult and compete (and a 5th `C' collaborate). Under "challenge" the service provided is regarded as strategically important to achieving corporate objectives, particularly Corporate Aims 4 and 6. Under "compare", it is hoped that there will be some property reviews already completed or at least started in our family group of fire authorities so that we may make meaningful comparisons. It is also hoped that we can compare our service with Hampshire Police and Hampshire Ambulance Service as well as a private sector organisation.

We will "consult" a range of Service users. This will be undertaken via postal/telephone questionnaire or interviews. Graham Starke will provide and seek views on our dealings with HCC and other contractors to assess the effectiveness of day-to-day management arrangements.

RECOMMENDATION

That current progress be noted.

DRIVER TRAINING ( BEST VALUE SCOPING STUDY )

Appendix D

Duration of Review

Commenced: February 2000

Completed: 2nd April 2001

Review Team

SDO Butcher

Lead Officer

Mr D Kendall

Driver Training

Mr A Craven

Financial Services Manager

StnO Simmons

Fire Safety B24

ADO Winter

ADO Training

DO Weller

Quality & Audit

Scope of Study

The scope of the review was as follows:

*

Investigate if there is a better way of providing the service.

*

Investigate collaborative working.

*

Investigate contracting out the service.

*

Produce a zero-based budget.

Review Progress

The starting point was to determine the actual cost of providing driver training in HFRS. This was achieved by undertaking a zero-based budget exercise. A series of meetings were held with representatives from Hampshire Constabulary, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight's ambulance and fire and rescue services.

The purpose of these meetings was to establish if joint working could be established to increase driver training efficiency. As a result of these meetings it was determined that joint working was either impracticable or not welcome by other organisations. It was also difficult to accurately compare the cost of providing driver training in HFRS with Hampshire Constabulary (the only other organisation that supplied the requested information) because of different accounting methodologies.

Investigations were carried out to determine if elements of driver training could be contracted out to an external provider. The only element that was considered practicable for this was the Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) training and testing. Four commercial companies were approached and asked to provide quotations. One company did quote less than the equivalent cost of HFRS providing the training, but on investigation this company operated from a mobile office (a car!) and there were understandable concerns about the quality of service likely to be offered. The three other companies were more expensive than HFRS. As a result it was determined that contracting out the LGV element of training was not a practicable option for the time being. The other elements of the driver-training programme require the use of specialist vehicles driving under emergency response conditions. All of the driver training companies contacted could not supply this type of training. The only other possible providers of this training were other local fire authorities. However, because of the relative high number of HFRS students per year and the travel distances involved this was not considered to be a viable option. Further investigation of this option was not carried out.

A sample of customers (trainees) were contacted to assess the level of satisfaction that the Unit gives. They were also asked to comment on any improvements they thought could be made. The results showed that generally the service offered was good with a relatively high level of satisfaction. Some of the suggestions made by customers are worthy of further investigation to improve the service. These will be followed-up in due course.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Service Management Team having considered the outcomes of the review of the Driver Training Unit in detail, recommended that the current arrangements for providing driver training should continue.

The Group is asked to endorse this decision.

CATERING (BEST VALUE SCOPING STUDY)

Appendix E

Duration of Review

Commenced: June 2001

Due for Completion: October 2001

Review Team

DO Crisford

(Lead Officer)

L Hearnden

(Personnel)

John McClelland

(Watch / Station Catering)

Jason Treasure

(Internal Audit)

SDO Webb

(Quality & Audit)

Trade Union Representatives

Scope of Review

The overall objective of the Catering Best Value Scoping Study is to examine whether the existing provision of catering services is meeting current needs and expectations in a cost-effective way. Three areas are being examined:

*

Service HQ catering

*

Station/Watch catering

*

Emergency catering

Review Process

An initial project plan has been drawn up and circulated to all parties.

Subsequent information and advice received from HMFSI has resulted in the review being re-graded from a best value review to a scoping study.

The review team met with Jason Treasure (HCC Internal Audit), T/ACO Bacon and SDO Webb on 1 August 2001. This meeting confirmed the change of status of the review and agreed a common format that would be used for the report.

Additional sources of information on catering review have been identified as follows:

1

A confidential internal audit report on HFRS emergency catering by HCC's Internal Audit Service.

2

Two previous best value catering surveys carried out by Derbyshire F&RS and by Somerset Fire Brigade. HFRS contributed to both surveys and the project team is hopeful that these will provide some useful comparative information.

RECOMMENDATION

That progress be noted.

Appendix F

PROCUREMENT (BEST VALUE REVIEW)

Duration of review

Commenced 1 May 2001

Due for completion: 31 3 2002

Review Team

DCO House

Chairman

SDO Long

Deputy Chairman

SDO Webb

Quality and Audit

David Parsons

Lead Officer

Joanna Matthews

Finance Member

StnO Bowers

Member

LFf Wadmore

Member

Scope of Review

To look at current processes and resources that are used in the procurement process in the following areas:

*

Personnel Protective Equipment

*

Clothing and Uniform

*

Operational Equipment

*

Breathing Apparatus

*

Vehicle Fuel

*

Gas, Electric and Heating oil

*

Cleaning Materials

*

Printing and Stationery

*

Information Technology

*

Audio Visual

*

Communications Equipment

*

Vehicles

Review Process

A review plan has been drafted and is being circulated to the Team. Monthly, `Steering', meetings will be programmed to review progress and to update Service Management Team.

Guidelines for the review have been taken from:

Audit Commission

-

`A Uniformed Approach' - a good practice guide on fire service procurement

-

A study of fire service procurement

CACFOA

-

Fire Service Procurement - Final Report

-

Fire Service Procurement - Benchmarking guide

The Review Team has had two meetings to agree scope of review and to complete a Self Assessment Benchmarking exercise - the results of which are currently being examined by team members.

RECOMMENDATION

That progress be noted.

Dir-fin BVSG 10 Sept 01 31/8/01