Operational risks are, for the most part, appropriately allocated. |
96 percent of contractors and 85 percent of authorities thought that risks relating to the ongoing operation of the asset currently were allocated to the party best able to manage them. Some of the risk allocations in the earliest projects had been amended in later projects, for example vandalism risk was retained by the authority (at least when the asset was in use), and utilities risk was transferred to the contractor.
Interviewees commented that appropriate allocation of risk was most difficult to achieve where there was significant interaction between contractor, authority and users. Materials management in hospitals was cited as an example of a risk that is sometimes transferred to the contractor but can be difficult for him to manage because of the need to interact with NHS IT systems. Allocation of risks relating to cleanliness can be difficult if more than one contractor is operating on the same site. This is a particular issue in Scotland where soft FM is sometimes carried out in house, or may be taken in house or let to a different contractor at fixed points in the contract. The interface between different contractors can then lead to difficulties in determining responsibilities if things go wrong.
Interviewees also commented that cost risks arising from unanticipated behaviour of different users of the asset, for example greater wear and tear caused by more severely ill patients in mental health facilities, were not always clearly allocated in the contract.
The example of Mearns Primary School demonstrates how the transfer of major risks has worked in practice. When the roof blew off one wing of the school, the contractor forfeited a significant amount of its availability payments and was responsible for the entire cost of repairs. Although the council was fully protected financially, it was the council's own staff that responded initially to the emergency, since the contractor's staff were not based locally.