| ID | Question | |
|---|---|---|
| 12.1.1 | Does your authority retain in‑house technical capability to independently assess maintenance interventions proposed by contractors? | Yes |
| 12.1.2 | Do you routinely analyse actual unit costs (for example £/m² of road surface treatments, or £/pothole repair) for core highways maintenance activities delivered under contract and compare them against benchmarks or historic performance? | Yes |
| 12.1.3 | Do you have defined KPIs for your highways maintenance contract(s), and are they actively monitored by your authority to manage performance? | Yes |
| 12.1.4 | If reactive pothole repairs are delivered by a contractor, do your contracting arrangements incentivise single‑visit permanent repairs where it is safe and appropriate to do so? | Yes |
Evidence Summary
|
Contractor reports are presented at regular contract meetings and appraised accordingly. These contain such things as health and safety, risk management, current work completed, work proposed, work quality, financials, compensation events and early warnings, KPIs and social values. For over 5 years, we have been a member of the NHT CQC analysis undertaken by the Institute of Transport Studies at the University of Leeds. |
Further context
|
The authority retains an in-house technical capability in roles such as senior highway maintenance engineer and operational project team leaders, to independently assess all contractor works. Defined contract KPIs are in place and actively monitored, with contractor KPI performance reported monthly to drive continuous improvement. Contract arrangements incentivise single-visit permanent pothole repairs where safe and appropriate. In addition, CQC results are reviewed as part of contract performance management to provide assurance on quality, compliance and value for money across maintenance operations. Actual unit costs for carriageway maintenance activities are routinely analysed and benchmarked against historic and industry performance. |