The range of building types and complexity varied across the pilots. Each building surveyors' report identified a range of different risks and focus on condition. The reports issued by the respective consultants were broadly similar in terms of findings and recommendations albeit, it was clear that some buildings and systems were better maintained than others.
The differences in condition across the pilots are likely down to variance in approach/level of service/lifecycle maintenance delivered by the relevant ProjectCos and their facilities management providers and indeed, variances in scrutiny, audit and operational contract management deployed by the relevant public bodies.
Based on visual and in some areas, semi-intrusive surveys undertaken by all three consultants, the overall consensus was:
(i) that most of the estate was in a condition consummate with their relative age;
(ii) all Facilities subject to an appropriate maintenance regime; and
(iii) that generally ProjectCos, through their FM Service providers, are maintaining and undertaking cyclical Life Cycle Replacement Maintenance in line with overall expectations which is very positive in the first instance.
However, there are several consistent themes and risks that have come out of the surveys which will need to be assessed, validated, prioritised and then actioned by the relevant public bodies including:
• Obsolescence or exceeded life expectancy of equipment and systems e.g. CCTV, security systems and fixed electrical systems, distribution boards and boiler equipment.
• Impact of changes in legislation e.g. lack of RCD/RCCB circuit breakers across some buildings where electrical regulations have changed.
• Exterior fabric, roof and rainwater goods and maintenance poor in some areas with moss and substantive growth on roofs and in gutters including evidence of water ingress in some areas.
• Fire door condition in some cases poor e.g. large gaps noted between door leafs and no intumescent strips or smoke seals to designated fire doors.
• Air handling units and equipment including extract fans nearing the end of their life expectancy and in some cases non-compliant with regulations.
• Gaps and poor quality of information at Project Co/FM Service Provider level - incomplete planned preventative and lifecycle replacement information and records e.g. review of PPM paperwork at odds with the survey outcomes identified by consultants.
• Areas that have been either extended and/or refurbished or subject to "Change/Variations" not complying with current regulations e.g. ventilation or fire stopping; and
• Substantive amounts of M&E equipment and building elements have been identified requiring replacement around years 19/20 which raises a concern as to how this will be managed by the public bodies to avoid "over-sweating" of the assets by ProjectCo and to ensure compliance with the handback requirements.
As this paper suggests, Authorities need to outline clear criteria for the assessment of the Facility on transfer given the potential for ProjectCos to sweat the asset (assuming they can maintain performance and not incur deductions) prior to Handback. This is important as it limits the likelihood of Authorities having to spend public money on a previously privately operated asset post transfer.
Extending the life of any key building element or component beyond the anticipated design life may have a significant and detrimental impact, both monetarily and operationally for the relevant Authority.