Refine search Expand filter

Audit progress

- Any -

Sector

- Any -

Year

- Any -

Report type

- Any -

Topic

- Any -

Reports

Published

Newcastle Urban Transformation and Transport Program

Transport
Planning
Compliance
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management

The urban renewal projects on former railway land in the Newcastle city centre are well targeted to support the objectives of the Newcastle Urban Transformation and Transport Program (the Program), according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. The planned uses of the former railway land achieve a balance between the economic and social objectives of the Program at a reasonable cost to the government. However, the evidence that the cost of the light rail will be justified by its contribution to the Program is not convincing.

The Newcastle Urban Transformation and Transport Program (the Program) is an urban renewal and transport program in the Newcastle city centre. The Hunter and Central Coast Development Corporation (HCCDC) has led the Program since 2017. UrbanGrowth NSW led the Program from 2014 until 2017. Transport for NSW has been responsible for delivering the transport parts of the Program since the Program commenced. All references to HCCDC in this report relate to both HCCDC and its predecessor, the Hunter Development Corporation. All references to UrbanGrowth NSW in this report relate only to its Newcastle office from 2014 to 2017.

This audit had two objectives:

  1. To assess the economy of the approach chosen to achieve the objectives of the Program.
  2. To assess the effectiveness of the consultation and oversight of the Program.

We addressed the audit objectives by answering the following questions:

a) Was the decision to build light rail an economical option for achieving Program objectives?
b) Has the best value been obtained for the use of the former railway land?
c) Was good practice used in consultation on key Program decisions?
d) Did governance arrangements support delivery of the program?

Conclusion
1. The urban renewal projects on the former railway land are well targeted to support the objectives of the Program. However, there is insufficient evidence that the cost of the light rail will be justified by its contribution to Program objectives.

The planned uses of the former railway land achieve a balance between the economic and social objectives of the Program at a reasonable cost to the Government. HCCDC, and previously UrbanGrowth NSW, identified and considered options for land use that would best meet Program objectives. Required probity processes were followed for developments that involved financial transactions. Our audit did not assess the achievement of these objectives because none of the projects have been completed yet.

Analysis presented in the Program business case and other planning documents showed that the light rail would have small transport benefits and was expected to make a modest contribution to broader Program objectives. Analysis in the Program business case argued that despite this, the light rail was justified because it would attract investment and promote economic development around the route. The Program business case referred to several international examples to support this argument, but did not make a convincing case that these examples were comparable to the proposed light rail in Newcastle.

The audited agencies argue that the contribution of light rail cannot be assessed separately because it is a part of a broader Program. The cost of the light rail makes up around 53 per cent of the total Program funding. Given the cost of the light rail, agencies need to be able to demonstrate that this investment provides value for money by making a measurable contribution to the Program objectives.

2. Consultation and oversight were mostly effective during the implementation stages of the Program. There were weaknesses in both areas in the planning stages.

Consultations about the urban renewal activities from around 2015 onward followed good practice standards. These consultations were based on an internationally accepted framework and met their stated objectives. Community consultations on the decision to close the train line were held in 2006 and 2009. However, the final decision in 2012 was made without a specific community consultation. There was no community consultation on the decision to build a light rail.

The governance arrangements that were in place during the planning stages of the Program did not provide effective oversight. This meant there was not a single agreed set of Program objectives until 2016 and roles and responsibilities for the Program were not clear. Leadership and oversight improved during the implementation phase of the Program. Roles and responsibilities were clarified and a multi-agency steering committee was established to resolve issues that needed multi-agency coordination.
The light rail is not justified by conventional cost-benefit analysis and there is insufficient evidence that the indirect contribution of light rail to achieving the economic development objectives of the Program will justify the cost.
Analysis presented in Program business cases and other planning documents showed that the light rail would have small transport benefits and was expected to make a modest contribution to broader Program objectives. Analysis in the Program business case argued that despite this, the light rail was justified because it would attract investment and promote economic development around the route. The Program business case referred to several international examples to support this argument, but did not make a convincing case that these examples were comparable to the proposed light rail in Newcastle.
The business case analysis of the benefits and costs of light rail was prepared after the decision to build light rail had been made and announced. Our previous reports, and recent reports by others, have emphasised the importance of completing thorough analysis before announcing infrastructure projects. Some advice provided after the initial light rail decision was announced was overly optimistic. It included benefits that cannot reasonably be attributed to light rail and underestimated the scope and cost of the project.
The audited agencies argue that the contribution of light rail cannot be assessed separately because it is part of a broader Program. The cost of the light rail makes up around 53 per cent of the total Program funding. Given the high cost of the light rail, we believe agencies need to be able to demonstrate that this investment provides value for money by making a measurable contribution to the Program objectives.

Recommendations
For future infrastructure programs, NSW Government agencies should support economical decision-making on infrastructure projects by:
  • providing balanced advice to decision makers on the benefits and risks of large infrastructure investments at all stages of the decision-making process
  • providing scope and cost estimates that are as accurate and complete as possible when initial funding decisions are being made
  • making business cases available to the public.​​​​​​
The planned uses of the former railway land achieve a balance between the economic and social objectives of the Program at a reasonable cost to the government.

The planned uses of the former railway land align with the objectives of encouraging people to visit and live in the city centre, creating attractive public spaces, and supporting growth in employment in the city. The transport benefits of the activities are less clear, because the light rail is the major transport project and this will not make significant improvements to transport in Newcastle.

The processes used for selling and leasing parts of the former railway land followed industry standards. Options for the former railway land were identified and assessed systematically. Competitive processes were used for most transactions and the required assessment and approval processes were followed. The sale of land to the University of Newcastle did not use a competitive process, but required processes for direct negotiations were followed.

Recommendation
By March 2019, the Hunter and Central Coast Development Corporation should:
  • work with relevant stakeholders to explore options for increasing the focus on the heritage objective of the Program in projects on the former railway land. This could include projects that recognise the cultural and industrial heritage of Newcastle.
Consultations about the urban renewal activities followed good practice standards, but consultation on transport decisions for the Program did not.

Consultations focusing on urban renewal options for the Program included a range of stakeholders and provided opportunities for input into decisions about the use of the former railway land. These consultations received mostly positive feedback from participants. Changes and additions were made to the objectives of the Program and specific projects in response to feedback received. 

There had been several decades of debate about the potential closure of the train line, including community consultations in 2006 and 2009. However, the final decision to close the train line was made and announced in 2012 without a specific community consultation. HCCDC states that consultation with industry and business representatives constitutes community consultation because industry representatives are also members of the community. This does not meet good practice standards because it is not a representative sample of the community.

There was no community consultation on the decision to build a light rail. There were subsequent opportunities for members of the community to comment on the implementation options, but the decision to build it had already been made. A community and industry consultation was held on which route the light rail should use, but the results of this were not made public. 

Recommendation
For future infrastructure programs, NSW Government agencies should consult with a wide range of stakeholders before major decisions are made and announced, and report publicly on the results and outcomes of consultations. 

The governance arrangements that were in place during the planning stages of the Program did not provide effective oversight. Project leadership and oversight improved during the implementation phase of the Program.

Multi-agency coordination and oversight were ineffective during the planning stages of the Program. Examples include: multiple versions of Program objectives being in circulation; unclear reporting lines for project management groups; and poor role definition for the initial advisory board. Program ownership was clarified in mid-2016 with the appointment of a new Program Director with clear accountability for the delivery of the Program. This was supported by the creation of a multi-agency steering committee that was more effective than previous oversight bodies.

The limitations that existed in multi-agency coordination and oversight had some negative consequences in important aspects of project management for the Program. This included whole-of-government benefits management and the coordination of work to mitigate impacts of the Program on small businesses.

Recommendations
For future infrastructure programs, NSW Government agencies should: 

  • develop and implement a benefits management approach from the beginning of a program to ensure responsibility for defining benefits and measuring their achievement is clear
  • establish whole-of-government oversight early in the program to guide major decisions. This should include:
    • agreeing on objectives and ensuring all agencies understand these
    • clearly defining roles and responsibilities for all agencies
    • establishing whole-of-government coordination for the assessment and mitigation of the impact of major construction projects on businesses and the community.

By March 2019, the Hunter and Central Coast Development Corporation should update and implement the Program Benefits Realisation Plan. This should include:

  • setting measurable targets for the desired benefits
  • clearly allocating ownership for achieving the desired benefits
  • monitoring progress toward achieving the desired benefits and reporting publicly on the results.

Appendix one - Response from agencies    

Appendix two - About the audit

Appendix three - Performance auditing

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #310 - released 12 December 2018

Published

Matching skills training with market needs

Industry
Compliance
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Risk
Service delivery
Workforce and capability

The NSW Department of Industry targets subsidies towards training programs delivering skills most needed in New South Wales. However, the Department still provides subsidies to qualifications that the market may no longer need, according to a report released by Margaret Crawford, Auditor-General for New South Wales. 

In 2012, governments across Australia entered into the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. Under the National Partnership Agreement, the Australian Government provided incentive payments to States and Territories to move towards a more contestable Vocational Education and Training (VET) market. The aim of the National Partnership Agreement was to foster a more accessible, transparent, efficient and high quality training sector that is responsive to the needs of students and industry. 

The New South Wales Government introduced the Smart and Skilled program in response to the National Partnership Agreement. Through Smart and Skilled, students can choose a vocational course from a list of approved qualifications and training providers. Students pay the same fee for their chosen qualification regardless of the selected training provider and the government covers the gap between the student fee and the fixed price of the qualification through a subsidy paid to their training provider. 

Smart and Skilled commenced in January 2015, with the then Department of Education and Communities having primary responsibility for its implementation. Since July 2015, the NSW Department of Industry (the Department) has been responsible for VET in New South Wales and the implementation of Smart and Skilled. 

The NSW Skills Board, comprising nine part-time members appointed by the Minister for Skills, provides independent strategic advice on VET reform and funding. In line with most other States and Territories, the Department maintains a 'Skills List' which contains government subsidised qualifications to address identified priority skill needs in New South Wales.

This audit assessed the effectiveness of the Department in identifying, prioritising, and aligning course subsidies to the skill needs of NSW. To do this we examined whether:

  • the Department effectively identifies and prioritises present and future skill needs 
  • Smart and Skilled funding is aligned with the priority skill areas
  • skill needs and available VET courses are effectively communicated to potential participants and training providers.

Smart and Skilled is a relatively new and complex program, and is being delivered in the context of significant reform to VET nationally and in New South Wales. A large scale government funded contestable market was not present in the VET sector in New South Wales before the introduction of Smart and Skilled. This audit's findings should be considered in that context.
 

Conclusion
The Department effectively consults with industry, training providers and government departments to identify skill needs, and targets subsidies to meet those needs. However, the Department does not have a robust, data driven process to remove subsidies from qualifications which are no longer a priority. There is a risk that some qualifications are being subsidised which do not reflect the skill needs of New South Wales. 
The Department needs to better use the data it has, and collect additional data, to support its analysis of priority skill needs in New South Wales, and direct funding accordingly.
In addition to subsidising priority qualifications, the Department promotes engagement in skills training by:
  • funding scholarships and support for disadvantaged students
  • funding training in regional and remote areas
  • providing additional support to deliver some qualifications that the market is not providing.

The Department needs to evaluate these funding strategies to ensure they are achieving their goals. It should also explore why training providers are not delivering some priority qualifications through Smart and Skilled.

Training providers compete for funding allocations based on their capacity to deliver. The Department successfully manages the budget by capping funding allocated to each Smart and Skilled training provider. However, training providers have only one year of funding certainty at present. Training providers that are performing well are not rewarded with greater certainty.

The Department needs to improve its communication with prospective students to ensure they can make informed decisions in the VET market.

The Department also needs to communicate more transparently to training providers about its funding allocations and decisions about changes to the NSW Skills List. 

The NSW Skills List is unlikely to be missing high priority qualifications, but may include lower priority qualifications because the Department does not have a robust process to identify and remove these qualifications from the list. The Department needs to better use available data, and collect further data, to support decisions about which qualifications should be on the NSW Skills List.

The Department relies on stakeholder proposals to update the NSW Skills List. Stakeholders include industry, training providers and government departments. These stakeholders, particularly industry, are likely to be aware of skill needs, and have a strong incentive to propose qualifications that address these needs. The Department’s process of collecting stakeholder proposals helps to ensure that it can identify qualifications needed to address material skill needs. 

It is also important that the Department ensures the NSW Skills List only includes priority qualifications that need to be subsidised by government. The Department does not have robust processes in place to remove qualifications from the NSW Skills List. As a result, there is a risk that the list may include lower priority skill areas. Since the NSW Skills List was first created, new additions to the list have outnumbered those removed by five to one.

The Department does not always validate information gathered from stakeholder proposals, even when it has data to do so. Further, its decision making about what to include on, or delete from, the NSW Skills List is not transparent because the rationale for decisions is not adequately documented. 

The Department is undertaking projects to better use data to support its decisions about what should be on the NSW Skills List. Some of these projects should deliver useful data soon, but some can only provide useful information when sufficient trend data is available. 

Recommendation

The Department should: 

  • by June 2019, increase transparency of decisions about proposed changes to the NSW Skills List and improve record-keeping of deliberations regarding these changes
  • by December 2019, use data more effectively and consistently to ensure that the NSW Skills List only includes high priority qualifications
The Department funds training providers that deliver qualifications on the NSW Skills List. Alignment of funding to skill needs relies on the accuracy of the NSW Skills List, which may include some lower priority qualifications.

Only qualifications on the NSW Skills List are eligible for subsidies under Smart and Skilled. As the Department does not have a robust process for removing low priority qualifications from the NSW Skills list, some low priority qualifications may be subsidised. 

The Department allocates the Smart and Skilled budget through contracts with Smart and Skilled training providers. Training providers that meet contractual obligations and perform well in terms of enrolments and completion rates are rewarded with renewed contracts and more funding for increased enrolments, but these decisions are not based on student outcomes. The Department reduces or removes funding from training providers that do not meet quality standards, breach contract conditions or that are unable to spend their allocated funding effectively. Contracts are for only one year, offering training providers little funding certainty. 

Smart and Skilled provides additional funding for scholarships and for training providers in locations where the cost of delivery is high or to those that cater to students with disabilities. The Department has not yet evaluated whether this additional funding is achieving its intended outcomes. 

Eight per cent of the qualifications that have been on the NSW Skills List since 2015 are not delivered under Smart and Skilled anywhere in New South Wales. A further 14 per cent of the qualifications that are offered by training providers have had no student commencements. The Department is yet to identify the reasons that these high priority qualifications are either not offered or not taken up by students.

Recommendation

The Department should:

  • by June 2019, investigate why training providers do not offer, and prospective students do not enrol in, some Smart and Skilled subsidised qualifications 
  • by December 2019, evaluate the effectiveness of Smart and Skilled funding which supplements standard subsidies for qualifications on the NSW Skills List, to determine whether it is achieving its objectives
  • by December 2019, provide longer term funding certainty to high performing training providers, while retaining incentives for them to continue to perform well.
The Department needs to improve its communication, particularly with prospective students.

In a contestable market, it is important for consumers to have sufficient information to make informed decisions. The Department does not provide some key information to prospective VET students to support their decisions, such as measures of provider quality and examples of employment and further education outcomes of students completing particular courses. Existing information is spread across numerous channels and is not presented in a user friendly manner. This is a potential barrier to participation in VET for those less engaged with the system or less ICT literate.

The Department conveys relevant information about the program to training providers through its websites and its regional offices. However, it could better communicate some specific information directly to individual Smart and Skilled training providers, such as reasons their proposals to include new qualifications on the NSW Skills List are accepted or rejected. 

While the Department is implementing a communication strategy for VET in New South Wales, it does not have a specific communications strategy for Smart and Skilled which comprehensively identifies the needs of different stakeholders and how these can be addressed. 

Recommendation

By December 2019, the Department should develop and implement a specific communications strategy for Smart and Skilled to:

  • support prospective student engagement and informed decision making
  • meet the information needs of training providers 

Appendix one - Response from agency

Appendix two - About the audit

Appendix three - Performance auditing

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #305 - released 26 July 2018

Published

Sydney Road Maintenance Contracts

Transport
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management

In November 2013, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) outsourced the maintenance of State roads in the Sydney region south and west zones using an innovative contracting approach called the Stewardship Maintenance Contract (SMC). The SMC links risk to reward, and uses a performance framework where outcomes should drive improved performance over time.

RMS’ SMC contract management includes most elements of good practice, including governance and dispute resolution mechanisms. However, key elements are missing which reduces its effectiveness.

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is responsible for the Sydney region State roads network This includes over 2,800 kilometres of roads and associated road corridor infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels and drainage structures. RMS divides the network into three geographical areas: south, west and north zones.

In 1995, RMS first outsourced road corridor infrastructure maintenance for the north zone through a Performance Specified Maintenance Contract (PSMC). The current 10-year PSMC for the north zone will expire in October 2018. Prior to November 2013, RMS maintained roads in the south and west zones through its Road and Fleet Services unit. 

In November 2013, RMS outsourced road maintenance services for the south and west zones using Stewardship Maintenance Contracts (SMC). The contracts run for seven years with an option for a further three years at RMS’ discretion. RMS estimated that the annual cost of these contracts was around $240 million in total. In March 2018, the contract prices are due to be reset by negotiation to reflect the contractors’ experience with, and better information about, the road networks and routine maintenance requirements. 

The SMC model adopted stewardship principles to improve value for money. RMS defined stewardship principles as a broad set of values, attitudes and behaviours, required of the contractor to effectively manage the assets on behalf of RMS. The SMC also includes commercial principles, such as linking risk to reward, and a performance framework where outcomes drive performance.

This audit assessed whether RMS had effectively managed the outsourcing of road maintenance in the Sydney region south and west zones. In making this assessment, we answered the following questions:

  1. Did RMS justify the decision to adopt the SMC model?
  2. Do SMCs include key performance indicators (KPIs) and incentives which promote efficiency and effectiveness? 
  3. Does RMS collect high quality information on contractor performance and take action to correct performance deficiencies?
  4. Are the expected benefits being achieved?

Conclusion

RMS developed an innovative contracting approach with the SMC. RMS has realised some benefits in the first year, including savings, from outsourcing road maintenance in the Sydney region south and west zones using the SMC. However, RMS’ management of the SMC has key elements missing which reduces its effectiveness.

The SMC includes performance measures and incentives to drive efficiency and effectiveness improvements over time.  

RMS has established a contract management framework which includes most elements of good practice, including governance and dispute resolution mechanisms. However, it does not have procedures to guide its contract managers in managing specific provisions of the SMC. Consequently, RMS has not exercised several significant SMC requirements, such as having the contractor account for an efficiency dividend in its pricing at the start of each three-year works period. It also has not done enough to assure itself that the contractor provided performance and financial data are correct. This is important because the data is used to measure performance and calculate contractor payments.  

RMS assessed that it had achieved around 80 per cent of the expected cost benefit in the initial year of the SMC. However, it has not tracked its achievement of benefits since then.

The Stewardship Maintenance Contract

RMS justified adopting the SMC model and included KPIs to drive efficiency and effectiveness

The SMC model includes features that RMS had not previously used for road maintenance contracts. These included adopting stewardship principles and transferring price risk to the contractor over time as the contractor becomes familiar with the assets being maintained.

The SMC model meets RMS’ requirements for flexibility in pricing models, the need for collaboration in asset maintenance planning, promoting innovation and effective performance management.

RMS used many good practices to develop the SMC model, including:

  • preparing a robust business case comparing the SMC model to RMS maintaining the road network itself, as well as assessing whether two other contracting models
    (traditional and alliance) would meet its requirements
  • assessing experiences with similar arrangements in other jurisdictions and identifying elements that worked to get the best outcomes
  • developing a robust performance framework, which included a mix of efficiency and effectiveness KPIs that reflected NSW Government policy and RMS priorities
  • incorporating risk and reward incentives delivered through cost sharing arrangements which change as the contract matures
  • using a contract duration that supports RMS priorities and provides an incentive for better quality outcomes.

RMS uses data provided by the contractor to measure performance and calculate payments to the contractor. The SMC includes a specific sanction if RMS finds that the contractor provided incorrect performance data, but no specific sanction if the contractor provides incorrect financial data. If RMS finds that the contactor provided incorrect performance or financial data, RMS can only recover over-payments which may have been made using the incorrect data.  

To provide a stronger incentive for the contractor to ensure data it provides is accurate, RMS should consider whether to incorporate stronger sanctions when negotiating the commercial reset due in mid-2018 for south and west zones. RMS should also consider this for the new contract for the north zone when the current PSMC contract expires in October 2018.

RMS' contract management approach and benefits realization

RMS can improve the effectiveness of its oversight and management of the SMC

RMS does not have SMC specific contract procedures to guide its contract managers. Consequently, RMS has not exercised several significant SMC requirements, such as having the contractors account for an efficiency dividend in their pricing at the start of each three-year works period. Effective contract management should be supported by contract specific procedures, with explanations of, and allocation of responsibility for, the various interventions that RMS may be required to exercise in the SMC.

Performance and financial reporting under the SMC is based on a mix of RMS and contractor provided data. While there are a range of audits of contractor provided performance and financial data that RMS can conduct each year under the SMC, it does not have a schedule of audits it will conduct and when.  
During the first year of the SMC, RMS commissioned some limited audits of financial data. In the first three years of the SMC, RMS did not conduct any audits of performance data. Had there been SMC specific procedures in place, this would have reduced the risk of RMS not implementing a systematic audit program to give it reasonable assurance on the quality of the data that the contractor has provided. This is important because the data is used to measure performance and calculate contractor payments.

RMS has been aware of data quality issues since 2015. While RMS advised that it commenced addressing some data quality issues in response to a series of reviews conducted in 2015, a recent internal audit report indicates that RMS has not resolved the data quality issues.  

RMS achieved benefits in the first year, but has not tracked benefits since

As part of the business case, RMS agreed to implement a benefits realisation strategy, including a benefits tracking tool. RMS commenced tracking benefits, but did not establish a comparative baseline pre-SMC on non-financial benefits, and has not tracked benefits past year one.

In 2015, a benchmarking study commissioned by RMS found that it had achieved 80 per cent of the expected recurrent cost savings and other benefits, such as improved workplace safety, in the first full year of the SMC. However, there was no clear baseline to measure
non-financial performance. The study was qualified due to gaps in available data. The study also did not reconcile the actual one-off transition costs to the business case estimate.

During the course of the audit, RMS advised that it intends to repeat this type of study to determine whether it has achieved all expected benefits (and their value), and that it would use the results to inform its negotiation with the SMC contractors as part of the commercial reset due in mid-2018.

Roads and Maritime Services is responsible for the State Roads network in the Sydney region

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is responsible for the Sydney region State roads network. This includes over 2,800 kilometres of roads and associated road corridor infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels and drainage structures. The network is divided into three geographical areas: south, west and north zones. Prior to November 2013, RMS maintained roads in the Sydney region south and west zones through its Road and Fleet Services unit.  

In 1995, RMS first outsourced road corridor infrastructure maintenance for the north zone through a Performance Specified Maintenance Contract (PSMC). The current 10-year PSMC for the north zone will expire in October 2018. This contract is worth around $35 million per annum.  

NSW Government priorities and road maintenance

Efficient and effective road maintenance contributes to the following NSW Government priorities:

  • improving road travel reliability
  • ensuring on-time running of public transport
  • reducing road fatalities
  • improving government services
  • keeping our environment clean.

The NSW Commission of Audit recommended outsourcing the maintenance of State roads

The NSW Commission of Audit in its Final Report on Government Expenditure (May 2012) recommended contestability as an appropriate strategy to consider for improving road maintenance service delivery for State roads.  

The Commission benchmarked RMS’ road surface quality and cost per lane kilometre against those of Western Australia, Victoria, and Queensland. This showed that New South Wales lagged the other states on both these measures.  

Exhibit 1: Interjurisdictional comparison of road maintenance outcomes 2009–10
  WA VIC QLD NSW
Roads managed (lane kms) 52,659 50,510 71,353 80,348
Estimated spend ($/lane km) 5,000 4,500 6,000 7,000
Road quality measure (%) 99 99 94 91
Source: NSW Commission of Audit Final Report May 2012.

The Commission noted that RMS had conducted two independent reviews to examine the potential for extending road maintenance contestability. The Commission found that there was inadequate and inconclusive benchmarking to establish the efficiency of RMS’ Road and Fleet Services unit when compared to outsourcing. It recommended that RMS bring forward a proposal to conduct a competitive tender for the road maintenance of the Sydney region south zone road network to inform the feasibility of a progressive rollout of road maintenance contestability across other areas of the State. In August 2012, the NSW Government adopted the Commission’s recommendation.

The NSW Government introduced road maintenance contestability through Stewardship Maintenance Contracts

In April 2013, the NSW Government announced that it would introduce road maintenance contestability across the Sydney region, using a Stewardship Maintenance Contract (SMC) model to improve value for money. In doing so, it excluded RMS’ Road and Fleet Services unit from tendering.  

The SMC model is based on the following key commercial and performance principles set by RMS:

  • performance driven by outcomes
  • flexible and adaptable
  • transparent and measurable
  • linking risk to reward
  • continuous improvement
  • criteria for selection of, and transition to, different payment models.

The following key stewardship principles underpin the SMC’s broad set of values, attitudes and behaviours, which are required of the contractor to effectively manage the assets on behalf of RMS:

  • putting RMS’ customers (road users and the general public) first and being responsive to them
  • being responsible and accountable for the outcomes resulting from the management of the assets
  • managing the assets diligently, efficiently and effectively with limited direction from RMS
  • working collaboratively with RMS to deliver services that are tailored to meet RMS’ evolving needs
  • acting with integrity and transparency in performing the services
  • performing the services in the best interests of RMS and asset users.

Other key features of the SMC include:

  • service requirements which describe the scope of the services, and the standards the contractor must meet
  • a commercial framework which defines how payments are structured, how performance assessment will impact on payments and outlines the key commercial principles. SMCs primarily divide payments into two main mechanisms, these being the priced component (or fixed price) and the target cost calculated as follows:
    • fixed price – the contractor is paid a pre-agreed amount for specific services being provided, regardless of the actual costs incurred
    • target cost – RMS and the contractor agree on a target cost for a project, and any cost overruns or underruns are shared between them
  • a performance framework which provides mechanisms for assessing contractor performance. This includes a comprehensive listing of the key result areas (KRAs) and key performance indicators (KPIs) against which RMS measures the contractor’s performance. The framework also outlines the scoring methodology that RMS uses to determine whether the contractor’s bid margin (profit and overheads) is reduced due to less than satisfactory performance or whether a bonus is paid if a threshold performance score is exceeded.

Road maintenance under SMCs for Sydney region south and west zones commenced in November 2013

In November 2013, RMS awarded SMCs to the Leighton Boral Amey consortium, now named Ventia Boral Amey (VBA), for the south zone and the DownerMouchel (DM) consortium for the west zone. The contracts run for seven years with an option for a further three years at RMS’ discretion. In April 2014, full services commenced following a four-month transition period. RMS estimated that the annual cost of these contracts was around $240 million in total. In March 2018, the contract prices are due to be reset by negotiation to reflect the contractors’ experience with, and better information about, the road networks and routine maintenance requirements. 

  1. Roads and Maritime Services should consider whether to incorporate stronger sanctions in the Stewardship Maintenance Contract if the contractor provides incorrect performance or financial data to RMS, when:
     
    1. negotiating the commercial reset for the next works period with the Sydney region south and west zone contractors due in July 2018.
    2. finalising a new SMC contract for the Sydney region north zone, due to commence in October 2018.

Roads and Maritime Services should, by September 2017:

2.  Review its contract management framework for SMCs to ensure that all authorities and accountabilities of
     contract managers are clearly defined, including:

a) accountability and procedures for exercising all operational clauses in the SMC where RMS may opt to, or be required to intervene, or make a decision

b) authority to approve or initiate the interventions RMS is required to, or may, exercise under the SMC

c) the audits that RMS will conduct to systematically validate the performance and financial data that the SMC contractors provide

d) the accountabilities of RMS contract managers to systematically review audits and quality reviews that the SMC contractors must conduct to demonstrate compliance with their service plans

e) the accountabilities of RMS contract managers to check that the monthly and annual reports provided by SMC contractors do not contain errors, omissions or inaccuracies.

3.  Improve its management of benefits realisation by:

a) initiating a further benefits realisation review and record the benefits delivered against those
    estimated following the tender process, including the one-off transition costs

b) identify any benefits, including savings, not yet attained and develop strategies to address any short-falls

c) establish a tool to track the ongoing realisation of benefits.

Appendix One - Response from Roads and Maritime Services

Appendix Two - Better practice contract management framework

Appendix Three - About the audit

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #288 - released 15 June 2017

Published

NorthConnex

Premier and Cabinet
Treasury
Transport
Compliance
Infrastructure
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement

The processes used to assess NorthConnex adequately considered value for money for taxpayers.This report also found that the impact of tolling concessions on road users and the motorway network was consistent with policy objectives described in the 2012 NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan.

NorthConnex is a nine-kilometre tolled motorway tunnel between the M1 Pacific motorway at Wahroonga and the M2 Hills motorway at West Pennant Hills. The total cost for the project is $3.1 billion. NorthConnex will be funded through toll charges, and contributions from the NSW and Australian Governments of up to $405 million each. In January 2015, the NSW Roads Minister signed the final contracts for NorthConnex.

By December 2017, the Department of Premier and Cabinet should:

1. publish an updated ‘Unsolicited Proposals – Guide for Submission and Assessment’ which clarifies obligations with requirements in other NSW Government policies such as the NSW PPP guideline and Infrastructure Investor Assurance Framework. The update should require:

a) a business case to be prepared, and a business case gateway review completed, as part of the assessment of the detailed proposal (currently stage 2)

b) probity reports must be completed and considered before the decision to proceed to the next stage.
 

The Department of Premier and Cabinet and NSW Treasury should immediately:

2. improve record keeping to ensure compliance with the State Records Act 1998 and the NSW Government Standard on Records Management.

 

Appendix One - Response from Agency

Appendix Two - Governance Arrangements for NorthConnex

Appendix Three - About the Audit

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #287 - released 8 June 2017

Published

Contingent workforce - management and procurement

Industry
Management and administration
Procurement
Workforce and capability

The Department of Industry, Transport for NSW and the Department of Education were not able to demonstrate that the use of contingent labour is the best resourcing strategy to meet their business needs or deliver value for money.

NSW Government agencies use contingent labour to help deliver services to the community. The NSW Public Service Commission (PSC) defines contingent labour as people employed by a recruitment agency and hired by government agencies to provide labour or services. Agencies use contingent labour to fill a gap in skills or capability, for example, to fill a position while a staff member is on leave or where specialist knowledge may be needed on a short-term basis. The PSC estimated that in 2016 the contingent workforce represented 2.3 per cent of the public sector workforce, equivalent to 7,571 full-time employees.

The PSC recommends that contingent labour only be used when it is the most efficient and effective option available to respond to an agency’s business needs. It also recommends that agencies’ use of contingent labour be informed by workforce planning. 

Government spending on contingent labour has increased significantly over the last five years, from $503 million in 2011–12 to $1.1 billion in 2015–16. To reduce spend in this area, the NSW Government has introduced the Contingent Workforce Renewal Strategy, overseen by NSW Procurement. The Strategy aims to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in the use of contingent labour. It has four pillars:

  • prequalification scheme – a list of approved contingent labour suppliers
  • vendor management system – an information system to manage contingent workers
  • managed service provider – a recruitment agency broker
  • contractor management organisations – organisations that manage a contingent labour database, which agencies can source labour from.

The prequalification scheme is mandatory for public sector agencies. Agencies are progressively rolling out the other pillars. The vendor management system and managed service provider are together called ‘Contractor Central’.

Within the context of sector reform aimed at promoting efficiency and effectiveness, the objective of this audit is to assess whether agencies’ approach to purchasing and managing their contingent workforce meets business needs and delivers value for money. In making this assessment, we reviewed three agencies each at a different stage of the reform:

  • Department of Education (Education) – Contractor Central introduced in August 2015
  • Department of Industry (Industry) – Contractor Central introduced in November 2016, after our review
  • Transport for NSW (Transport) – Contractor Central not in place.
Conclusion

None of the three agencies we reviewed were able to demonstrate that contingent labour is the best resourcing strategy to meet their agencies’ business needs or delivers value for money. There are three reasons for this. First, agencies’ use of contingent labour was not informed by workforce planning at an agency level, with limited work undertaken in this area. Second, two of the three agencies have limited oversight of their contingent workforce. Information is not reliable or accurate, reports are onerous to produce, and there is limited reporting to the agency’s executive. Finally, none of the agencies routinely monitor and centrally document the performance of contingent workers to ensure services are delivered as planned. Together, these factors make it difficult for agencies to ensure contingent labour is engaged only when needed, at reasonable rates, and delivers quality services.

Some of these issues will be addressed by Contractor Central, which had only been introduced at Education at the time of our review. The new software program enables staff to easily obtain real-time reports on its contingent workforce. The recruitment broker also has the potential to improve value through better negotiation and benchmarking of pay rates. However, Contractor Central will only address some of the issues highlighted above. Better workforce planning and performance monitoring are needed to ensure an agencies’ workforce, including contingent workers, meets its business needs and represents value for money.


The use of contingent labour neither informs nor is informed by agency level workforce plans

None of the three agencies we reviewed had an agency level workforce plan in place. Agencies could not demonstrate that they had analysed their use of contingent labour at an agency level, including how it is being used to address any skills gaps. An agency’s executive is responsible for ensuring that an agency level workforce plan is in place. An agency level workforce plan helps hiring managers to make decisions on the best resource strategy to meet their business needs. This is important because contingent labour should only be engaged after considering all other recruitment options and the agency’s workforce plan.

Contingent workforce data is not always reliable or accurate

The accuracy and reliability of contingent workforce data varied significantly across the three agencies we reviewed. In Industry and Transport, information on contingent labour is difficult to obtain because it must be drawn from different data sources, affecting its accuracy, reliability and timeliness. This information is also incomplete, with these agencies not having a full picture of their contingent workforce. Quality data is important because it improves an agency’s capacity to plan and monitor its use of contingent labour to ensure it meets business needs.

At the time of our review, only Education, through Contractor Central, was able to obtain timely and accurate data on its use of contingent labour. Contractor Central has also improved its reporting capability, with the agency’s executive now receiving quarterly reports on its contingent workforce. In contrast, executives in Industry and Transport received ad-hoc reports on the use of contingent labour that only gave them limited oversight of their contingent workforce.

Long tenure of contingent workers is an issue in agencies

We found that the maximum tenure of contingent labour varied across agencies from nine to more than 20 years. In Education and Transport, staff reported that hiring managers assume contingent workers are automatically renewed at the end of their contract, with no formal consideration about whether contingent labour is still needed. Also, contingent labour is used for significant capital projects in the information technology and infrastructure areas where a project may run for several years.

None of the agencies reviewed undertook an analysis to determine how to reduce tenure while ensuring business needs are met. This is particularly important for long-term use of contingent labour for large capital projects. Understanding whether contingent labour represents best value compared to other recruitment options, such as secondments or temporary employment, is essential. Contingent workers are engaged under different working conditions to employees. Long tenure can pose an industrial relations risk to agencies because contingent workers may believe they are entitled to the same working conditions as employees.

On and off-boarding processes could be strengthened

Agencies have processes to engage and release contingent labour, also called on boarding and off-boarding. This includes access to IT systems, building access, and the return of property. However, not all agencies had on boarding or off-boarding checklists with specific requirements for engaging or releasing contingent labour. In addition, agencies’ off boarding guidelines did not always provide for knowledge transfer. This was identified as a key risk by staff because it is important to ensure that critical skills and knowledge are retained.

Risk that agencies are being overcharged when engaging contingent labour

We found that in agencies without Contractor Central, there is limited assurance that recruitment agencies charge in line with the prequalification scheme fees. NSW Procurement estimates that the government was overcharged $1.3 million in 2015–16. In addition, there is a risk that hiring managers do not have sufficient information to benchmark pay rates when negotiating contingent labour engagements. Agencies with Contractor Central may be more likely to get reasonable rates by using a recruitment broker who has specialised market knowledge.

No system in place to monitor the performance of contingent workers

None of the agencies we reviewed had a system in place to monitor the performance of their contingent workforce at an agency level to ensure it delivers value for money. Hiring managers are not required to evaluate whether contingent labour delivers the services for which they are hired. For example, hiring managers do not routinely assess and centrally document the quality of services provided, including whether services are delivered on time and within budget. This means contingent workers who are not performing may be re-hired by other managers or agencies. With the implementation of Contractor Central, there is the means to capture agency-wide information on the performance of contingent workers.

Contractor Central has the potential to improve value for money

Contractor Central has the potential to improve value for money. This is because the recruitment broker has specialised market knowledge and is able to promote competition, and benchmark and negotiate pay rates. In addition, the new software can streamline invoice processing and ensure correct supplier rates are charged. Education reports that it achieved a net saving of $944,600 from August 2015 to May 2016 due to the introduction of Contractor Central. Industry also expects to achieve similar results with Contractor Central, which it advised was implemented in November 2016.

The Department of Industry and Transport for NSW should, by December 2017:

1. improve the accuracy and reliability of their data on contingent labour

2. routinely report the use of contingent labour to agency executive.

The Department of Industry, Department of Education, and Transport for NSW should:

by December 2017:

3. ensure agency-wide on-boarding and off-boarding guidelines or checklists detail the specific requirements for engaging or releasing contingent labour, including provisions for knowledge transfer.

by March 2018

4. ensure that contingent labour informs and is informed by workforce planning, by:

  • analysing agency-wide business needs, staff capability, and skills gaps
  • understanding how gaps are filled by contingent workers or other recruitment options
  • assessing whether long-term contingent worker engagements are the most economical and effective labour option
  • evaluating whether contingent workers meet agency business needs and deliver value for money.

5. assess and centrally document the performance of their contingent workforce to ensure that services are delivered as contracted

6. implement processes to ensure that hiring managers consider other recruitment options prior to engaging or re-engaging contingent workers.
    

Sector-wide learnings

This audit identified learnings that government agencies across the sector should consider when procuring and managing contingent labour:

1. Contingent workforce planning should be part of an agency’s broader workforce planning.

2. Using information systems to manage and procure contingent labour improves the accuracy, reliability and timeliness of contingent labour data. This information enables agencies to consistently assess contingent labour rates and to identify persistent skills gaps in their workforce.

3. Routine reporting of contingent labour to agency executives provides oversight of an agency’s use of contingent labour.

4. Hiring managers should consider all recruitment options, with advice from human resources staff, before engaging contingent labour to ensure that it is the most appropriate solution for a specific need.

5. Regularly assessing long tenure contingent labour engagements helps to ensure that such engagements are still the most economical and effective labour option.

6. Planning the engagement of contingent workers, including provisions for knowledge transfer, maximises the potential to obtain value for money from the use of contingent labour.

7. Assessing and centrally documenting the performance of contingent labour against agreed deliverables helps to ensure services are delivered as planned, including in terms of quality, and timeliness.

Download appendices for report on Contingent workforce

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #282 - released 27 April 2017

Published

Management of sickness absence NSW public sector volume 1

Whole of Government
Management and administration
Service delivery
Workforce and capability

Information relating to the NSW public sector wide sickness absence levels, unlike in some other states, are presently not maintained or monitored centrally. The salaries and wages paid to individuals whilst on sickness absence on a public sector wide basis in 1996-97 was estimated to be $368.3m. This estimate does not take into account any flow -on effect resulting from sickness absence, eg overtime or other replacement cost.

Improved management of sickness absence provides an opportunity for the NSW public sector to gain benefits, including the reduction of salary costs associated with people on sickness absence. The salary differential between the sickness absence level currently existing and the sickness absence level reported for the private sector, is around $123m per annum. To assist with the management of sickness absence within the NSW public sector, The Audit Office of NSW developed a Better Practice Guide. This Guide has been referred to the Premier’s Department for consultation as a prelude to its completion and release.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #52 - released 27 August 1998

Published

Management of sickness absence NSW Public Sector: Volume Two, The Survey - Detailed findings

Whole of Government
Management and administration
Service delivery
Workforce and capability

This Volume, Volume Two: The Survey - Detailed Findings, is the second of a two part Performance Audit Report on Management of Sickness Absence New South Wales Public Sector. The first volume, Volume One: Executive Briefing, identifies the main issues of sickness absenteeism identified during the audit.

This Report Volume, Volume Two: The Survey - Detailed Findings, presents the more detailed findings of the audit which were gathered from:

  • the review and analysis of responses received from agencies to The Audit Office’s management of sickness absence survey

  • fieldwork visits to selected public and private sector organisations, during the course of the audit, which supplemented the survey. 

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #52 - released 27 August 1998

Published

Casino surveillance as undertaken by the Director of Casino Surveillance and the Casino Control Authority

Industry
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Risk
Workforce and capability

At the request of the Department of Gaming and Racing, the audit reviewed the efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation and management of casino surveillance undertaken pursuant to the Casino Control Act, 1992 (the Act).

Implicitly the Act requires an effective level of cooperation and coordination between the agencies to achieve their statutory roles and responsibilities. However, The Audit Office is of the opinion that this has not been achieved. As a consequence, the efficiency and effectiveness of the surveillance roles and processes carried out under the Act can be improved.

Revision is required to the surveillance methodology and its implementation, to the skills base within Director of Casino Surveillance (DCS) and the underlying working and to organisational arrangements between and within DCS and the New South Wales Casino Control Authority. Until such revision has been finalised, it is not possible to determine the level of resources or type of surveillance that needs to be undertaken and funded.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #50 - released 10 June 1998

View our audit program
View audit program
EXPLORE
upcoming audits
Have your say
CONTRIBUTE