At the outset, MOD has greater responsibility for performance monitoring, and this will be kept under review

3.11 In most PFI contracts, the contractor is responsible for measuring the quality of the services delivered against the standards laid down by the authority. Authorities have the right to monitor the validity of the contractor's information since it is this that determines whether any performance deductions will be made.

3.12 MOD wishes to establish a robust climate of compliance and good performance, and to do so it decided to be responsible for the service audit element of the performance monitoring system. MOD told us that it only required three additional staff in its Partner Co-ordination Team (PCT) to carry out service audits. The annual cost of those additional staff is some £75,000. At some future date, which may be after Main Building has been reoccupied, MOD plans to reduce the number of service audits it undertakes when it considers that Modus has established a robust climate of compliance and good performance and MOD can rely on Modus' self-monitoring regime which it feels it cannot do at present. In this project, MOD requires Modus to ensure that all relevant aspects of the project are the subject of a project quality management system which complies with British Standard 9001:94. As we pointed out in our study, 'Managing the relationship to secure a successful partnership in PFI projects', authorities need to reassess the contractor's monitoring procedures and its own to ensure the integrity of the performance information they receive. MOD plans to audit the veracity of self-monitoring systems from time to time.

14	Governance arrangements for the project
	Ministry of Defence	Group	Contractor

		Liaison Group
	MOD Personnel Director	Meets quarterly	All shareholders in Modus
	■ Terms of reference: To provide an opportunity for stakeholders to discuss the project with the client and vice versa To discuss all matters that have not been resolved in lower-level groups.
		Team MBR
	Director and his two assistant directors of MBR	Meets monthly	Senior representatives from Modus, Skanska Whitehall, Amey Whitehall
	■ Terms of reference: Principle forum to review project progress and performance Management of project risks Identification and discussion of present and future issues Review of key performance indicators.
		Redevelopment communications group
	MBR	Meets monthly		Modus, Skanska Whitehall, Amey Whitehall
	■ Terms of reference: Developing messages to ensure that all communications needs were met Determining the most appropriate media for each message to ensure it is received The content and style of internal and external publications Agreement around events and their timing.
		Capital works liaison
	MBR	Meets fortnightly		Modus - Construction Director Skanska Whitehall - Operations Directors Amey Whitehall - Head of Facilities
	■ Terms of reference: Review of capital works programme Review of critical dates schedule Reports from subordinate committees Review of key performance indicators Review of key risks.
		Facilities management liaison
	MBR Partner co-ordination team	Meets monthly		Modus - Facilities Management Services Director Amey Whitehall - Commercial, Operations and Customer Services Directors Skanska Whitehall - Facilities Manager
	■ Terms of reference: To provide a forum to resolve any issues affecting the provision of Facility Management services in accordance with the contract. The aim of which is to ensure that the services contracted for are provided in accordance with the contract, the agreed performance standards are achieved and the level of deductions is minimised.
		Design and Co-ordination approval
	MBR	Meets monthly		Modus - Construction Director Amey Whitehall - Head of Facilities Skanska Whitehall - Construction Director
	■ Terms of reference: Reviewing progress on major design issues Reviewing critical dates affecting design programme Monitoring and reviewing design documents Reviewing key design risks.
	Source: Ministry of Defence

3.13 MOD relies on Modus' management information from the Helpdesk to determine whether faults logged with the Helpdesk have been rectified within pre-defined grace periods. MOD has read-only access to Helpdesk data provided by Modus covering reported events. Overdue calls may be liable to performance deductions. In addition, both MOD and Modus can declare Unavailability.

3.14 Services are monitored at an agreed frequency, which varies by service from daily monitoring for cleaning to monthly monitoring for, say, pest control. MOD undertakes service audits with the company of Modus' staff, although the latter will not know which part of a building will be subject to a service audit until the actual day. This should act as an incentive for them to clean all parts of a building for example, and allow both parties to agree whether required standards have been met or not.

3.15 The Helpdesk service is, itself, audited to determine whether the calls have been categorised correctly in terms of priority (urgent, high, or routine), time taken for the Helpdesk to answer calls and whether feedback has been appropriately provided to the callers. A maximum of 10 per cent of monthly logged calls, currently running at 2,000 a month, can be audited, although MOD is at liberty to review all calls logged. The maximum deduction will be made if all Helpdesk queries audited are dealt with incorrectly.