Facility maintenance in the PPP model represents hard and soft services that the private sector delivers to the public sector for length of the contract term. Hard services include maintenance of the building fabric, maintenance of grounds and gardens, maintenance of electrical, mechanical, civil engineering components in the building, and programmed lifecycle replacement and maintenance. While the soft services include waste management, catering, cleaning services, car parking services and other services.
The facility maintenance sub-theme ranked highest of positive comments among all sub-themes. For all the 12 PPP projects, the service providers and contract managers accepted that facility maintenance is an essential part of service delivery that has led to positive operational outcomes.
The service providers and contract managers for the education category generally appreciated the hard services component of PPP model which leads to school being maintained at a high standard throughout the contract period. It contributes work life balance to principals who no longer must take time after school hours or during vacations to ensure that facilities are kept in high operational standards. School business managers are no longer spending their time managing or monitoring facility maintenance related activities. This gives principals time to focus on core service (education and leadership) rather than non-core services (facility maintenance - hard and soft).
The service providers and contract managers for the education category were also highly appreciated of both the soft and hard services component of PPP model. The high standard of soft services ensured that teachers always receive clean and well-maintained facilities to deliver education. School service providers also agreed that the facility maintenance provision reduces the workload for business managers and reduces stress for leadership teams as repairs are conducted efficiently.
The two key services that attracted positive comments as a result of PPP model were security and vandalism. Principals from various jurisdictions were happy with the quality of security services received. This always ensured safety of staff and children in the school facilities. While some of the schools reported instances of vandalism, several schools had no incidents of vandalism. School PPP contracts in which the risk of vandalism was allocated to private sector received additional positive comments compared to school contracts where the vandalism risk was shared between public and private sectors.
The service providers and contract managers from hospitals and other categories from all four jurisdictions also appreciated the facility maintenance component of the PPP model.
In conclusion, the workshop participants appreciated the facility maintenance component of the PPP models which ensures that hard and soft services are delivered efficiently for the contract period.