The first stage of the engagement was to review all the Service Requests disputed by the Trust, on the grounds of calculation differences, for the previous 6 Monthly Performance Monitoring Reports. By applying a rigorous understanding of the contract and the payment mechanism included within it, we were able to illustrate the different variables that help derive SFPs and deductions for each failed Service Request, and the relevant information that is required to calculate these. As a result, not only were Curshaw able to provide our independent view on what the submitted SFPs and deductions should have been, but our process enabled us to identify how Project Co and the Trust might be forming each of their positions. This helped the parties get closer to agreeing outstanding Monthly Performance Monitoring Reports and their associated SFPs and deductions for that month, as well as help minimise calculation errors going forward.

The next stage of the engagement covered disputed failure events that were more subjective than those that were not agreed on the basis of differences in calculations. These covered areas such as: 

• helpdesk items that were claimed by the Project Company as requiring temporary repairs, which is a contractual mechanism that requires both parties to agree to where a permanent fix would not be possible within the contractually required timescales; and 

• cancelled jobs, where the Project Company did not calculate any SFPs or deduction because a job that was started was then cancelled, whereas the Trust claimed that required response times had been missed.
  

Curshaw undertook extensive analysis of the contract, and identified why these systemic disagreements were occurring. From this, we coordinated a workshop with Project Co, the Management Services Provider (MSP) and Facilities Management provider (FM Co), to help address these issues and enhance the transparency in Monthly Performance Monitoring Reports. For each disputed category, the workshop outlined the following:

1. An example of a Service Request being disputed under that category, as well as outlining the key themes arising from the comments made by the Trust, Project Co and FM Co.

2. Discuss the current methods and processes used by FM Co in reporting and calculating items in each specific category, as well as the potential recommendations as to how this can be improved to satisfy the Trust.

3. Confirm the approved method that will be incorporated into the guidance pack for the Trust, outlining clearly how the relevant category has been calculated and reported previously, and the steps being taken to improve the clarity of these events, such that the likelihood of the Trust rejecting Service Requests under this category is mitigated.

In addition, the workshop also helped facilitate discussions around the processes and governance of submitting Performance Monitoring Reports, and recommendations, such as adjusting reporting windows to allow more time for quality assurance were made.