While not a frequent occurrence, it was reported in workshops that the same FM operator contracted across separate PPP projects in the same jurisdiction provided a different service experience to service providers. In one extreme example, a service provider group reported delight with their on-site FM operator, while another service provider group, in the same sector with the same FM operator, reported high dissatisfaction with their on-site FM operator. The authors further observed that the approach of the public sector contract managers to deal with this FM operator was to consider the performance in each PPP project in isolation.
While there might be a view that each PPP contract should be dealt with on its own terms and conditions, the authors believe that there is nevertheless an opportunity for government as a high value repeat customer. This opportunity is based on recognising that within a jurisdiction 'government' is one legal entity that contracts and funds across projects and across sectors. As government is often a market dominant repeat buyer, it can be expected that the FM operator would welcome the opportunity to address any negative experience that might impair its reputation when tendering for future contracts, and accordingly would welcome a contract manager highlighting the discrepancy in the quality of service from one project to another.
It is reasonable to expect, following good probity principles, that high performing suppliers would want their client's past and current experience with them to be taken into account in a tender selection criterion for the next contract. Indeed, failure to do so, particularly for poor performing suppliers, may effectively result in the Client allowing itself to be treated as a 'nuisance' or as an 'exploitable opportunity' (there being no adverse consequences for the supplier's past poor performance).
In the case of FM operators, and other members of PPP Project Co, it is reasonable for them to be held accountable for 'patchy' performance when this is documented and evidenced (see also Section 3.3). It is also reasonable for government to appropriately take a FM operator's track record (of performance and its responses to issues of poor performance) when evaluating future tenders. Moreover, the dissatisfied service provider group referenced above, stated that they would be delighted to have the opportunity to provide regular formal performance assessments of their relationship with their on-site FM operator. Indeed, it would be productive for contract managers to carry out regular service provider workshops or surveys to monitor customer satisfaction.