MST Contractor v6

Motivating Success Toolkit
A Toolkit for Performance Measurement
Major Projects
Reporting Pro - Forma

v6.0
Jun-13
Scheme name
Supplier
Scheme type
Phase
Reporting Period from
Reporting Period to
Quantitative Evidenced Contractor Performance Indicators
MST Guidance Notes
Email completed MST to commercialintelligence@highways.gsi.gov.uk
File naming structure

Construction - Const
scheme name MST Development - Reporting period
version Devel
Scheme 123 MST v6 Const 2013 04
Introduction
The Highways Agency has made a strong commitment to long-term relationships with its suppliers and we need to ensure that the benefits of
these relationships are maximised for all. Performance Management should be used to underpin continuous improvement within a
collaborative working process. Motivating Success is the Agency's system for performance measurement; all HA contracts will implement
performance measurement in accordance with the principles established through the Motivating Success Toolkit (MST). Effective performance
measurement on HA contracts should be viewed as a collaborative effort between the HA and Supplier.
Using this MST

Areas of Measure have been broken down into Performance Indicators which are a balance of inputs and outputs and involve all key
members of the Integrated Project Team. The score for each Performance Indicator should be agreed with the both Project Manager and
Commercial Performance Manager based on evidence provided to demonstrate achievement against the Quality Criteria. The Commercial
Performance Manager should be invited to attend scoring meetings to ensure a consistent approach across all schemes and suppliers.
Measures that include in-month assessment data such as EVM, financial forecasting, etc. should use the latter month's results to reflect the
cumulative nature of the scoring. For example: April to May MST will us the May CRaMS for EVM, forecasting will be the cumulative spend to
May against the cumulative baseline to May.
Cumulative measures can retain scores from the last submission (for a specified period) if there has been no change in overall circumstance.
However, it is worth discussing and recording in the toolkit whether the current evidence will be enough to maintain the same score in the next
period and highlighting where perhaps further examples will be needed.
Merely doing something very well does not constitute exceeding expectation but rather meets the criteria for 'satisfied', a score of 6. For
scores above a 6 evidence should focus on what and how something has exceeded expectation, and the benefits to the Agency. For a 10 we
would also expect to see a level of detail on which other scheme (outside of your own company) your best practice has been deployed. For
scores below a 6 evidence should be provided but thought should also be given to how things can be improved for the next period. Where
scores are above or below a 6, please highlight the appropriate evidence in bold. Evidence from previous periods should be dated, or deleted
when no longer relevant.
MST evidence is reset at the beginning of a new phase and, therefore, no evidence can be used from a previous phase.
An MST is required where value invoiced is greater than 5,000 in the two month period or when six months have elapsed since the last MST
submission
360 Feedback
This is in-period feedback and should be scored in a similar way to KPIs 1 - 6 as indicated below. After the first MST submission, evidence
only needs to be provided for scores higher or lower than a 6.
Agreement of scores
Scores will only be accepted for inclusion in the Supplier's Balanced Scorecard and other reports when they have been agreed by both the
Project Manager and the Commercial Performance Managers. Both parties will need to agree and should sign the toolkit. This, however,
should not delay the submission of the soft copy.
349968463.xls Page 2 of 64
MST Guidance Notes
If either supplier, Project Manager or Commercial Performance Manager disagree on a score then it needs to be escalated to the SRO for a
final decision. To achieve a score of 6 we are expecting to see all tasks, that the HA have requested to be completed, completed to a
satisfactory level, taking into account the additional requirements in the Quality Criteria. To achieve a score of 8, all the Quality Criteria for a 6
must be met as well as all the criteria for an 8. Generally, if the Quality Criteria is not quantative, we are expecting evidence which indicates
work has been undertaken, or a new proposal and solution has been suggested that the HA did not initiate or request. This is usually based on
performance in the last six month period. To score a 10, all the criteria for an 8 must be met as well as all the criteria for a 10, along with
evidence that any new innovative idea has been deployed on another scheme or HA processes have been changed to reflect that piece of
work undertaken. This is based on performance since the begining of the task order.
Accepted scores will not be revised retrospectively but cumulative scores should be reassessed in each period and a different scores can be
agreed.
Submission
All submissions must be compressed as a zip file.
The toolkit should be completed every two months or as otherwise specified by the Commercial Performance Manager.
A draft MST is required to be provided by working day 10 after the 'reporting to' date or earlier as requested by the HA.
The agreed MST, in an Excel format, should be sent by the HA Project Manager to the Commercial Intelligence mailbox:
"commercialintelligence@highways.gsi.gov.uk" by the end of the following month (e.g. the agreed MST for April to May's performance should
be submitted by 30th June). Schemes failing to return submissions by the deadline date may be awarded scores of zero.
Further information
Further guidance can be found on the HA website at Motivating Success - A Toolkit for Performance Measurement - Major Projects see link
below.
http://www.highways.gov.uk/about-us/procurement/supplier-selection-and-development/performance-measurement/
Details can also be obtained from your regional Commercial Performance Manager or by emailing your query to the link below.
commercialintelligence@highways.gsi.gov.uk
349968463.xls Page 3 of 64
MST Guidance Notes
Using this workbook
Tabs Description
Cover Cover for report highlighting scheme and reporting period
Notes How to fill in the MST and general notes
Scheme Details Enter Scheme details and reporting period
Table Table showing which measures apply to different scheme types and phases
Attachments Shows details of each measure and scoring criteria
360 Attachment Shows details of each measure and scoring criteria for 360 feedback
1 Product Scores input and detail of evidence for score selected / improvement actions for next time
2 Service Scores input and detail of evidence for score selected / improvement actions for next time
3 RFT Scores input and detail of evidence for score selected / improvement actions for next time
4 Cost Scores input and detail of evidence for score selected / improvement actions for next time
5 Time Scores input and detail of evidence for score selected / improvement actions for next time
6 H&S Scores input and detail of evidence for score selected / improvement actions for next time
360 Feedback Scores input and detail of evidence for score selected / improvement actions for next time
Summary Summary table of all the scores selected for the reporting period
Scores history Table showing history of scores for scheme. Supplier use only
Graphs Graphs showing scores at headline level for financial year. Supplier use only
Version Control List of changes to versions of MST
Glossary Glossary of acronyms and abbreviations used within the MST
Scheme Details: mandatory cells are highlighted in green and data entry here will populate headings throughout the toolkit including the
cover sheet. Headline measure averages and summary tab values will only appear once Scheme Type and Phase have been selected.
Scheme Type, Phase, Month and Year are all selected via a drop down menu. The tab is left unprotected should the supplier wish to add any
further scheme detail.
Scoring individual Areas of Measure: at the top of each Headline tab is a headline summary table showing the active Performance
Indicators for the current toolkit (those not required because of scheme type or scheme phase will appear greyed-out). To enter scores scroll
down and insert score against the appropriate Performance Indicator either by the drop down menu or direct entry (the score selected will also
be updated on the 'Summary' tab).
349968463.xls Page 4 of 64
MST Guidance Notes
Layout
Scheme Type or View attachment
Phase measure by clicking
applies to. attachment
number
Headline
measure
Summary
Table
Enter score by Enter evidence to

drop down list or View support your
direct entry. corresponding score, any
Scores available attachment improvement
0,2,4,5,6,8,10,NA actions with
deadlines. All
evidence that is
not for a score of 6
should be in bold.
349968463.xls Page 5 of 64
MST Guidance Notes
Information from the scheme details tabs will appear on all headline measure tabs
Scheme Type and

Phase are entered
onto the Scheme
Details tab.
Measures which
do not apply will
be shaded out
with "na" and auto
filled in.
Product measure 1.2

is only required for
schemes in
construction.
For schemes in
development this is
shaded out.
349968463.xls Page 6 of 64
MST Guidance Notes
Entry of Evidence
Headline measure
average score to
1 decimal place
Suggested layout
for evidence,
improvement
actions and date to
be carried out by.
349968463.xls Page 7 of 64
MST Guidance Notes
Evidencing individual Performance Indicators: evidence must be provided to support the score on each measure. In particular, evidence
from the supplier to support a score of 6, 8 or 10, or evidence from the Project Manager to support a score of 5, 4, 2 or 0. A link is provided to
jump to the corresponding attachments to view the Quality Standard Evidence and Quality Criteria, another link will jump back to the evidence
table from each attachment. Extra rows can be inserted to provide more evidence (at present 10 rows are provided for each Performance
Indicator except 360 feedback which has 5), each row has the wrap around activated.
Adding rows and columns to individual Performance Indicators: if inserting another row, drag the contents of the cell in column "A" above
the newly inserted row to keep the function of printed data. Inserting columns can be done but please note that Excel does not allow deleting
columns on protected sheets (all blue measurement tabs are protected).
Printing individual Areas of Measure: printing evidence can be done via "Select Data from drop down for printing evidence" just above the
first Performance Indicator. This allows you to select all Performance Indicators cells that contain this month's evidence without printing blank
lines in the evidence block.
Select
"data" from
drop down
Rows which
contain
evidence will be
selected
removing any
blank lines
when printing
evidence
sheets.
All submeasure
headlines will be
printed.
349968463.xls Page 8 of 64
MST Guidance Notes
Summary tab: gives the list of all the scores selected for the reporting period and is auto-populated from the main Area of Measure tabs.
column F
Copy cells
F8:F61 and
past as
values onto
the "scores
history tab"
349968463.xls Page 9 of 64
MST Guidance Notes
Scores history: is a suggested table for tracking historic scheme Performance Indicator scores, which is provided for the supplier use (should
they wish to use it). To update the scores copy cells "F8:F61" from the 'Summary' tab and paste into the table on the corresponding reporting
period column as values only.
MST supplier scores history
Scheme Graphs
349968463.xls Page 10 of 64
MST Guidance Notes
MST supplier graphs

Graphs: is a suggested layout of the headline measure in graph format which is provided for supplier use (should they wish to use them). The
data for the graphs is held in a table below the graphs and copies the data in from the 'Scores history' tab. The supplier can change this to
show scheme history scores. At present it will only shows the 2011/2012 financial year.
349968463.xls Page 11 of 64
Measurement Checklist
All measures are applicable except where indicated by "na".

Managed
Quantitative Evidenced Contractor Performance Indicators Conventional Motorway
Measure Category Capability /behaviour measured No. Description Dev. Con. Dev. Con.
1.1 To provide input to a scheme design which satisfies HA requirements (see attachment 1)
All Product Input to the design of the fully integrated scheme.
1.2 To construct a scheme which satisfies HA requirements for Construction activity (see attachment
Construction only Product Deliver the fully integrated scheme.
2) na na
2.1 To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with the Project Manager,
All Service
Integrated Project Team and/or the HUB (see attachment 3)
2.2 To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with NDD, NetServ and
All Service
other HA directorates (see attachment 4)
Maintain effective stakeholder engagement, 2.3 To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with the Contractors supply
All Service
communication, and collaboration. chain - tier 2 and tier 3 (see attachment 5)
2.4 To maintain fair payments to the Suppliers supply chain - tier 2 and tier 3 (see attachment 6)
All Service
2.5 To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with external stakeholders
All Service
(see attachment 7)
2.6 To manage sustainability and inclusion effectively in Development (see attachment 8)
Development only Service
Development na na
Manage sustainability.
2.7 To manage sustainability and inclusion effectively in Construction (see attachment 9)
Construction only Service
Construction na na
2.8 To manage risk and opportunities effectively (see attachment 10)
All Service Manage risk.
2.9 To manage the On Time Reliability Measure within the constraints agreed with NDD or the
All Service Manage The Reliability Measure through construction.
Project Manager (see attachment 11)
2.10 To demonstrate improvements to time, cost and health & safety through innovation (see
All Service Facilitate continuous improvement through innovation.
attachment 12)
3.1 To deploy and manage quality processes and demonstrate effectiveness of quality processes
All RFT Manage effective quality processes and controls.
through independent audit (see attachment 13)
3.2 To ensure that key information and actions do not require avoidable rework (see attachment 14)
All RFT
3.3 To minimise and manage Non-Conformance Reports (NCRs) and defects for Construction
Construction only RFT Deliver RFT.
activity (see attachment 15)
3.4 To measure the effectiveness of resource management for Construction activity (see attachment
Construction only RFT
16)
Development and 4.1 To complete the phase within the Development Phase Budget (not applicable to MM schemes)
Conventional only Cost
(see attachment 17) na na na
4.2 To complete the phase within the Construction Phase Budget (see attachment 18)
Construction only Cost Deliver within cost. na na
4.3 To achieve the Cost Performance Index (CPI) target for the Development and Construction
All Cost
phases (see Attachment 19)
4.4 To forecast reliably for the current financial year (see attachment 20)
All Cost Forecast current financial year spend accurately.
4.5 To ensure that Compensation Events/Strategic Risk Events are priced accurately (see attachment
All Cost Estimate change events accurately.
21)
Development and 5.1 To complete the Development phase within the agreed timescale (not applicable to MM
Conventional only Time
schemes) (see attachment 22) na na na
5.2 To complete the Construction phase within the agreed timescale (see attachment 23)
Construction only Time Deliver within time. na na
5.3 To achieve the Schedule Performance Index (SPI) target for the Development and Construction
All Time
phases (see attachment 24)
5.4 To ensure timely response to key information and action required by HA and other relevant
All Time Provide timely information.
stakeholders within the period (see attachment 25)
6.1 To manage Health and Safety processes in Development and confirm effectiveness of Health &
Development only H&S
Safety management through independent audit (see attachment 26) na na
Manage H&S processes.
6.2 To manage health and safety processes for Construction activity and confirm effectiveness of
Construction only H&S
Health & Safety management through independent audit (see attachment 27) na na
6.3 To minimise reportable accidents (RIDDORs) ( see attachment 28)
Manage safety of the public, workers and road users.
6.4 To ensure safety of road users and members of the public in connection with Temporary Traffic
Management and signing for Construction activity (see attachment 29)
Time, cost, quality, expectations, scope, behaviour, capability, milestones, success criteria, KPI
All 360 360.1 determination and measurement.
Risk/reward, PCF, ICF, stage gate/gateway reviews and other relevant information/processes
All 360 Provides clarity 360.2 made clear.
Timing, relevance, clarity and consistency.

All 360 360.3
Environment (process and application) encourages optimum delivery of schemes and

All 360 360.4 programme.
Best practice is identified, evaluated appropriately based on evidence and deployed in a timely
All 360 Delivers value 360.5 manner across the programme.
Issues/trends identified early and problem solving techniques and expertise applied to overcome
All 360 360.6 them quickly.
Adaptability, timely action, close working relationships, and client responsibilities.

All 360 360.7
Proactive relationship management with DfT, HA cross directorate working and external
All 360 Is an effective partner 360.8 stakeholders.
HA mobilises timely and appropriate resource commensurate with required expertise.

All 360 360.9
Professionalism, fairness, demonstrating HA values, and can do attitude.

All 360 360.10
Risk split between Contractor & HA.

All 360 Displays integrity 360.11 Treatment of CE's
Meets requirements for main Contractor and facilitates prompt/correct payment across the wider
All 360 360.12 supply chain.
Scheme Details Sheet
Scheme Name
Supplier Name
Supplier Project Manager
Package name if applicable
Procurement approach
Scheme Type (Conventional scheme is any scheme other then Managed Motorway)
Phase
Month - year (reporting period from)
Month - year (reporting period to)
Project Manager
Approx. Tender Value
Award / Order Date
date
Supplier Representative & Position
Project Manager
Commercial Performance Manager
Description of works
to be carried out
Motivating Success Toolkit (MST)
Quantitative Evidenced Supplier Performance Indicators, (v6.0)
- - -
No.1.1 - PRODUCT - ATTACHMENT 1
Purpose To provide input to a scheme design which satisfies HA requirements
Products (where applicable):
Value Management Plan.
Efficiencies Register or equivalent
Value Management/Value Engineering workshop reports.
Buildability reviews to reduce construction phase risks and improve the buildability of the design.
Review of surveys and proposals for additional surveys.
Appraisal Summary Table (AST).
Environmental Statement.
Road Safety Audit.
Geotechnical Investigation report.
Quality Standard Geotechnical Design report.
Evidence Preliminary design. Detailed Design. As built design.
Draft Orders.
Other evidence:
Whole Life Cost consideration.
Balance between non-conformance to DMRB, departures and innovation.
Structures Options report.
Suppliers design input (including buildability and H&S issues).
Volume/resolution of design queries.
Evidence of collaboration with Designer.
Method Statements (including survey work).
Mobilisation Method Statements.
Compliance with statements in original tender submission.
Other Information to be
Actions arising from Public Inquiry.
considered
This measure reflects performance in the six months up to and including the reporting period.
Score Satisfaction Quality Criteria
More than one key aspect is currently unacceptable to the extent that it calls into question the suppliers capability.
Totally
0 dissatisfied
The project manager should have written to the appropriate suppliers director and HA SRO to inform them of this
concern which should also be itemised in the scheme issues register.
A key aspect is currently unacceptable to the extent that the project manager considers that significant intervention is
Very
2 dissatisfied
required. The project manager should have escalated this concern in writing to the suppliers senior management and
HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in the scheme issues register.
Some minor aspects are currently unacceptable and slightly outweigh those which are satisfactory to the extent that
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
the project manager seeks improvement. This concern should be itemised in the scheme issues register and
recorded in the record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
Neither This is to be used in exceptional circumstances where HA is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with Supplier
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
performance. The rationale for scoring 5 should be documented and agreed by the Commercial Performance
Manager.
All aspects of the scheme design are satisfactory or, where they are not, are balanced by others being exceeded.
Scheme design satisfies or is likely to satisfy HA/DfT key requirements but more significant compromise has been, or
is likely to be, necessary including Whole Life Cost. Design is based on robust survey data for this stage of the design
6 Satisfied evolution. ASTs are described and quantified (where appropriate) and scheme is considered likely to deliver key
targets. NDD and NetServ have been fully consulted and departures from standard have been agreed as necessary
and cost effective. Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered. Any best practise to be shared with other
schemes the supplier has with the HA.
All aspects are satisfactory and there is evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. Scheme design
satisfies (or is likely to satisfy) HA/DfT key requirements but minor Whole Life Cost or other compromise is likely or
has been necessary. It is based on appropriate supporting survey data for this stage of the design evolution. ASTs
are fully described and quantified (where appropriate) and scheme is considered likely to deliver all of them. NDD and
NetServ have been fully consulted and departures from standard have been agreed. Supplier is proactive in
8 Highly satisfied identifying notable best practice and can evidence that (i) they have undertaken additional work above their work
package specification (not initiated or requested by the HA) which provides a benefit to the scheme/HA, and (ii) the
details of this work have been submitted to the Knowledge Bank team (unless outside the scope of their defined
selectivity criteria). No early warning or compensation event/strategic risk event has been raised to increase the value
of the work package for this work.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. It satisfies fully (or is likely to satisfy fully) all HA/DfT requirements
without compromise. It represents the lowest Whole Life Cost solution, is within the scheme budget and is based on
robust data including geological and traffic surveys. ASTs are fully described and quantified (where appropriate) and
there is confidence that the scheme will exceed all of them. NDD and NetServ are fully engaged and support the
Exceptionally design. Departures from standard are supported by a business case and are accepted by HA and DfT key
10 satisfied stakeholders.
10 Exceptionally
satisfied Quantitative Evidenced Supplier Performance Indicators, (v6.0)
Supplier can evidence that any best practice identified and accepted within the definition of the 8 scoring criteria
(above) has been either (i) deployed on schemes delivered by other suppliers or (ii) led to HA processes being
changed and improved.
No.1.2 - PRODUCT - ATTACHMENT 2

Purpose To construct a scheme which satisfies HA requirements for Construction activity
Appraisal Summary Table (AST).
Road Safety Audit.
Construction Compliance Certificate checklist.
Other evidence:
Whole Life Cost consideration.
Quality Standard
Balance between non-conformance with DMRB, departures and innovation.
Evidence
Compliance with Scheme Design.
Compliance with Made Orders.
Compliance with Environment Statement.
Compliance with Commissioning Report.
Compliance with Maintenance and Repair Strategy Statement.
Evidence relating to workmanship and speed of defect correction.
Compliance with quality statements in original tender submission.
Number of instances of proceeding at risk (e.g.. start bridge construction before design AIP has been formally
Other Information to be approved)
considered
Outstanding accommodation works at road opening.
Totally
0 dissatisfied
Very
2 dissatisfied
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of physical construction to date (including quality management) are satisfactory or, where they are not,
are balanced by others being exceeded. Some cost effective unavoidable departures have been made or are planned
relating to the frozen Scheme Design, Made Orders, Commissioning Report and the Maintenance and Repair
6 Satisfied Strategy Statement. These are more significant but could not have been anticipated at the design stage. They have
been endorsed by key HA and DfT stakeholders. Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered. Any best practise
to be shared with other schemes the supplier has with the HA.
All aspects are satisfactory and there is evidence that some aspects (including quality management) are exceeding
HA expectation. Some unavoidable departures have been made or are planned relating to the frozen Scheme
Design, Made Orders, Commissioning Report and the Maintenance and Repair Strategy Statement. These are minor,
could not have been anticipated at the design stage and have been endorsed by key HA and DfT stakeholders. There
should be no significant concerns at scheme handover. Supplier is proactive in identifying notable best practice and
8 Highly satisfied can evidence that (i) they have undertaken additional work above their work package specification (not initiated or
requested by the HA) which provides a benefit to the scheme/HA, and (ii) the details of this work have been
submitted to the Knowledge Bank team (unless outside the scope of their defined selectivity criteria). No early
warning or compensation event/strategic risk event has been raised to increase the value of the work package for this
work.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. Full compliance is being achieved and is planned against Scheme
Design, Made Orders, Commissioning Report and the Maintenance and Repair Strategy Statement. There is a high
Exceptionally level of confidence that scheme handover will be totally satisfactory. Supplier can evidence that any best practice
10 satisfied identified and accepted within the definition of the 8 scoring criteria (above) has been either (i) deployed on schemes
delivered by other suppliers or (ii) led to HA processes being changed and improved.
No.2.1 - SERVICE - ATTACHMENT 3

To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with the Project Manager, Integrated Project
Purpose Team and/or the HUB
Communications Plan.
Communication with Project Manager and Integrated Project Team.
Communication with Commercial & Procurement
Communication with the HUB
Proactive nature of planned communications.
Timeliness of communication.
Completeness of communication.
Quality Standard Methodology for requesting and acting on feedback.
Evidence Clarity of accountability and responsibility.
Succession Plans for key roles.
Contact arrangements.
Accessibility of supplier personnel.
Participation in team meetings.
Feedback from IPT, other HA personnel and the HUB.
Behaviours in relation to FTC negotiations
Behaviours in relation to change negotiations
Project records.
Progress Reports.
Source of Data Correspondence.
Minutes of meetings.
Feedback received.
Other Information to be This measure reflects performance since the last MST score.
considered
Totally
0 dissatisfied
Very
2 dissatisfied
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of engagement are satisfactory or, where they are not, are balanced by others being exceeded. Supplier
engages fully and communicates clearly, effectively and proactively with an appropriate balance between tact,
diplomacy and assertiveness. The project manager and the HUB, if applicable, are kept fully informed and there is a
no surprise culture. Relative Supplier responsibility and accountability is clear and key Supplier and supply chain
personnel are accessible when reasonably required. Succession Plans on key roles are agreed with HA. Structured
feedback is encouraged and acted upon.
6 Satisfied
For the negotiation process (FTC in particular but also covers change) the supplier demonstrated awareness and
involvement at initial engagement. The pre negotiations stage was attended by appropriate staff, who demonstrated
cooperation and collaborative (integrative) behaviours. The environment for the final negotiations was conducive to a
successful outcome. At the final negotiations the right people (appropriate authority and knowledge) & attitudes
attended demonstrating cooperative and collaborative (integrative) behaviours. Agreed tender undertakings are being
delivered. Any best practise to be shared with other schemes the supplier has with the HA.
All aspects are satisfactory and there is evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. Supplier is
proactive in identifying notable best practice and can evidence that (i) they have undertaken additional work above
their work package specification (not initiated or requested by the HA) which provides a benefit to the scheme/HA,
8 Highly satisfied and (ii) the details of this work have been submitted to the Knowledge Bank team (unless outside the scope of their
defined selectivity criteria). No early warning or compensation event/strategic risk event has been raised to increase
the value of the work package for this work.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. Supplier embraces team and partnership working totally, displays
consistent positive behaviour and provides timely/proactive progress reports (with an appropriate balance between
Exceptionally good and bad news). Effective solutions are recommended based on reliable, considered, unbiased advice and
10 satisfied forecasts drawing on their expertise and considered professional judgement. Supplier can evidence that any best
practice identified and accepted within the definition of the 8 scoring criteria (above) has been either (i) deployed on
schemes delivered by other suppliers or (ii) led to HA processes being changed and improved.

Purpose To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with NDD, NetServ and other HA directorates
Communication with Project Manager and Integrated Project Team.
Communication with NDD, NetServ and other HA directorates.
Communication with TMD
Communication with the Category Management team
Methodology for requesting and acting on feedback.
Clarity of accountability and responsibility.
Succession Plans for key roles.
Quality Standard
Contact arrangements.
Evidence
Feedback from NDD, NetServ and other HA personnel.
Preliminary Sources Study.
Geotechnical Investigation Report.
Geotechnical Feedback Report.
Early Structures Notification.
Structures Options Report.
Approvals principles checklist.
Design and check certificates checklist.
Construction compliance certificate checklist.
Project records.
Progress Reports.
Feedback received.
Other Information to be This measure reflects performance since the last MST score.
considered
Totally
0 dissatisfied
Very
2 dissatisfied
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of engagement and communication are satisfactory or, where they are not, are balanced by others being
exceeded. Supplier has engaged effectively with NDD and NetServ through the project manager on relevant issues,
including those relating to communication, Whole Life Cost, safety, reliability, departures and maintenance. Supplier
6 Satisfied communicates clearly, effectively and proactively. Relevant targets and measurement have been agreed for the
impact of the On Time reliability measure on the network affected directly and indirectly during the construction
phase. Scheme handover is anticipated to be satisfactory. Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered. Any best
practise to be shared with other schemes the supplier has with the HA.
8 Highly satisfied and (ii) the details of this work have been submitted to the Knowledge Bank team (unless outside the scope of their
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. Supplier has fully engaged through the project manager and
conflicting objectives have been resolved based on robust data on best value. Supplier totally embraces team and
partnership working, displays consistent positive behaviour and provides timely/proactive progress reports (with an
Exceptionally appropriate balance between good and bad news). All aspects of scheme handover are anticipated to be totally
10 satisfied satisfactory. Supplier can evidence that any best practice identified and accepted within the definition of the 8 scoring
criteria (above) has been either (i) deployed on schemes delivered by other suppliers or (ii) led to HA processes being

Purpose To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with the Suppliers supply chain - tier 2 and tier 3
Tender submission (risk, reward and other tender undertakings).
Criteria for selecting sub-Suppliers.
Evidence of input from sub-Suppliers.
Evidence of sub-Suppliers being paid on time.
Quality Standard
Reasonableness of sub-Suppliers pay awards.
Evidence
Details of performance monitoring process.
Evidence of process being used effectively and results shared with HA.
Evidence relating to two-way appraisal system being operated effectively.
Feedback from the supply chain.
Tender documents.
Source of Data Suppliers records.
Sub-Suppliers performance assessments.
This measure deals with the Suppliers dealings with their tier 2 suppliers and the influence applied to tier 3 suppliers
Other Information to be where appropriate.
considered
Totally
0 dissatisfied
Very
2 dissatisfied
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of supply chain management are satisfactory or, where they are not, are balanced by others being
exceeded. Level 2 and 3 supply chain procurement is based on original tender submission on conditions aligned to
HA in terms of outcomes and risk/reward mechanisms. Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered. Selection
criteria include relevant experience, capability and performance. Supplier actively encourages input from key
6 Satisfied
members of the integrated team, including supply chain partners. Accountability and flexibility in providing evidence
with Suppliers supply chain being paid in accordance with OGC Fair Payment targets and Project Bank Accounts.
Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered. Any best practise to be shared with other schemes the supplier has
with the HA.
providing key information promptly on request and is proactive in sharing other additional relevant information without
request. Supplier actively encourages input from all members of the integrated team, including supply chain partners,
actively seeks feedback and responds positively. A robust and timely performance measurement process in place for
key members of their supply chain. Supplier is proactive in identifying notable best practice and can evidence that (i)
8 Highly satisfied they have undertaken additional work above their work package specification (not initiated or requested by the HA)
which provides a benefit to the scheme/HA, and (ii) the details of this work have been submitted to the Knowledge
Bank team (unless outside the scope of their defined selectivity criteria). No early warning or compensation
event/strategic risk event has been raised to increase the value of the work package for this work.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. Supplier is proactive in sharing all relevant information with HA
including details of sub-Suppliers, nature of the contracts, financial information and sub-Supplier performance. The
Exceptionally operation of a monthly robust and effective two-way performance appraisal system with all members of their supply
10 satisfied chain is visible to HA and under performance is managed effectively from an early stage. Supplier can evidence that
any best practice identified and accepted within the definition of the 8 scoring criteria (above) has been either (i)
deployed on schemes delivered by other suppliers or (ii) led to HA processes being changed and improved.

Purpose To maintain fair payments to the Suppliers supply chain - tier 2 and tier 3
2008 OGC Fair Payment targets (23 calendar days from due date for tier 2).
2010 OGC Fair Payment targets (19 calendar days from due date for tier 2 and 23 days for tier 3).
Project Bank Account (PBA)
Quality Standard CRaMS
Evidence PBA Tracker
Percentage of the value sub-contract work paid to approved suppliers directly from PBA
Bank Statements
Speed of payment to approved suppliers
Sub-Supplier payment history.
Source of Data
Suppliers records.
Payment is defined as cleared funds being available to the supplier.
Provision of HA 'View Only' access to PBA.
Other Information to be Should use an average of the months being reported. For example: April to May MST will us the average of the April
considered and May results.
This measure deals with the Suppliers dealings with their tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers where appropriate.
This measure reflects performance since the last MST score.
Totally The project manager should have written to the appropriate suppliers director and HA SRO to inform them of this
0 dissatisfied concern which should also be itemised in the scheme issues register. This may include failure to recognise OGC Fair
Payment targets.
Very required. The project manager should have escalated this concern in writing to the suppliers senior management and
2 dissatisfied HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in the scheme issues register. This may include significant failure to achieve
OGC Fair Payment targets.
Slightly the project manager seeks improvement. This concern should be itemised in the scheme issues register and
4 dissatisfied recorded in the record of progress meeting minutes/action points. This may include agreed Project Bank Account
timescales not being met and/or failure to achieve OGC Fair Payment targets.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
Average payment of Suppliers whole supply chain is 1 - 2 days faster than OGC Fair Payment targets. Where
applicable, Contractor pays all approved PBA suppliers on average within 4 days of HA payment into PBA and
6 Satisfied approved suppliers represent cumulatively more than 80% of the value of work paid to sub-contractors. Agreed
tender undertakings are being delivered.
Average payment of Suppliers whole supply chain is 3 - 4 days faster than the OGC Fair Payment targets. Where
8 Highly satisfied applicable, Contractor pays all approved PBA suppliers on average within 3 days of HA payment into PBA and
approved suppliers represent cumulatively more than 85% of the value of work paid to sub-contractors.
Average payment of Suppliers whole supply chain is at least 5 days faster than the OGC Fair Payment targets.
Exceptionally Where applicable, Contractor pays all approved PBA suppliers on average within 2 days of HA payment into PBA and
10 satisfied approved suppliers represent cumulatively more than 90% of the value of work paid to sub-contractors.

Purpose To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with external stakeholders
Communications Plan.
Methodology for requesting and acting on feedback.
Clarity of accountability and responsibility.
Quality Standard Supplier involvement in making relevant information available to the public.
Evidence Supplier involvement in Draft Orders, Public Consultation and Public Inquiry - (Development only).
Road User routine updates.
Feedback from IPT and other HA personnel.
Green/Red claims
Feedback from external stakeholders.
Considerate Supplier Scheme (CCS) assessments - (Construction only).
Media engagement.
Project records.
Feedback received.
Stakeholders include:
Public Inquiry Team.
Local communities. The general public.
Road users.
The media.
considered
Statutory Undertakers.
Suppliers of HA procured goods and/or services.
CCS score is not a prerequisite or a guarantee of the relevant MST score.
Totally
0 dissatisfied
Very
2 dissatisfied
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of external stakeholder management, including communication are satisfactory or, where they are not, are
balanced by others being exceeded. Supplier demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the relevant key
stakeholders and an agreed stakeholders management plan is in place. Communication is structured, planned,
relevant, timely, clear, unambiguous and tailored to the appropriate audience. Flexibility is in evidence over choice of
medium, venue and timing. Structured feedback is encouraged and acted upon. Road Users are kept fully informed.
6 Satisfied
Potential conflict is well managed and engagement minimises avoidable negative feedback, including complaints.
PCF communication products are satisfactory. Scheme will normally have achieved a Considerate Constructors
Scheme score of 30 - 34.5. Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered. Any best practice to be shared with
other schemes the supplier has with the HA.
All aspects are satisfactory and there is evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. Positive
stakeholder influencing capability is demonstrated. Structured feedback is proactively obtained in all relevant
circumstances and acted upon. External stakeholder feedback on matters within Suppliers control is generally
positive. Scheme will normally have achieved a Considerate Constructors Scheme score of 35 - 37.5. Supplier is
8 Highly satisfied
and (ii) the details of this work have been submitted to the Knowledge Bank team (unless outside the scope of their
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. Supplier is proactive in identifying and supporting opportunities to
improve relationships with external stakeholders and demonstrates exceptional cost effective and proactive action to
minimise scheme objections. Feedback received from external stakeholders is positive on matters within the
Exceptionally
10 satisfied Suppliers control. Scheme will normally have achieved a Considerate Constructors Scheme score of 38 - 40.

Purpose To manage sustainability and inclusion effectively in Development
Record of Environmental Determination.
Environmental Public Notices.
Environmental Assessment Report (Stages 1, 2 & 3).
Quality Standard Environmental Statement Non-technical Summary.
Evidence Compliance with HA requirements to measure scheme carbon footprint.
WRAP initiatives and targets.
Compliance with HA sustainability toolkits.
Specific schemes sustainability targets (if applicable).
Achievement of sustainability targets set.
PCF products.
Project records.
Supplier records.
Source of Data
Tender documents.
Sustainability Action Plan - as agreed with the Project Manager.
Inclusion Action Plan - as agreed with the Project Manager.
Other Information to be Compliance with statements in tender submission.
considered This measure reflects performance in the six months up to and including the reporting period.
Score Satisfaction DEVELOPMENT Quality Criteria (ATTACHMENT 8)
Totally
0 dissatisfied
Very
2 dissatisfied
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of scheme sustainability planning and deployment are satisfactory or, where they are not, are balanced by
others being exceeded. The project sustainability strategy is clear across all areas of the supply chain, aligns with the
overall HA sustainability action plan and focuses on the triple bottom line (economy, social & environment). Plans are
in place covering material sourcing, recycling, waste management, travel, management of resources and carbon
emission measurement. This aligns with HAs sustainability strategy. Supplier fully engages with HA, the public and
their supply chain to ensure that the project and client sustainable aspirations are achieved. Agreed plans are in place
6 Satisfied covering diversity and training, including the apprenticeship programme. The supplier is taking all reasonable steps to
achieve the targets set, both directly and across their supply chain. The supplier communicates to its workforce the
wider skills opportunities available and updates HA on progress in developing and deploying people inclusion plans.
Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered and PCF environmental products are satisfactory.
Any best practise to be shared with other schemes the supplier has with the HA.
All aspects are satisfactory and there is evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation, including key
suppliers across the supply chain. The supplier exceeds their agreed target number of apprentices by up to 5%.
Supplier is proactive in identifying notable best practice and can evidence that (i) they have undertaken additional
8 Highly satisfied work above their work package specification (not initiated or requested by the HA) which provides a benefit to the
scheme/HA, and (ii) the details of this work have been submitted to the Knowledge Bank team (unless outside the
scope of their defined selectivity criteria). No early warning or compensation event/strategic risk event has been
raised to increase the value of the work package for this work.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. All aspects of people inclusion considerably exceed HA expectation
across the whole supply chain. The supplier exceeds their agreed target number of apprentices by greater than 5%.
Exceptionally Supplier can evidence that any best practice identified and accepted within the definition of the 8 scoring criteria
10 satisfied (above) has been either (i) deployed on schemes delivered by other suppliers or (ii) led to HA processes being
Purpose To manage sustainability and inclusion effectively in Construction
Record of Environmental Determination.
Environmental Public Notices.
Environmental Assessment Report (Stages 1, 2 & 3).
Environmental Statement Non-technical Summary.
Quality Standard Compliance with HA requirements to measure scheme carbon footprint.
Evidence Compliance with Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)
CEEQUAL and/or other sustainability awards.
WRAP initiatives and targets.
Compliance with HA sustainability toolkits.
Specific schemes sustainability targets (if applicable).
Achievement of sustainability targets set.
PCF products, project records, supplier records and tender documents.
Source of Data Sustainability Action Plan - as agreed with the Project Manager.
Inclusion Action Plan - as agreed with the Project Manager.
Compliance with statements in tender submission.
CEEQUAL award is not a prerequisite or a guarantee of the relevant MST score.
considered
Score Satisfaction CONSTRUCTION Quality Criteria (ATTACHMENT 9)
Totally This includes lack of progress on producing/reporting relevant carbon emission measures and/or failure to meet
0 dissatisfied target by >7%. The project manager should have written to the appropriate suppliers director and HA SRO to inform
them of this concern which should also be itemised in the scheme issues register.
Very required. This includes more significant delay in measuring /reporting on carbon emissions and/or failure to meet
2 dissatisfied target by up to 3 - 7%. The project manager should have escalated this concern in writing to the suppliers senior
management and HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in the scheme issues register.
Slightly the project manager seeks improvement. Unacceptable aspects include a slight delay in measuring/reporting on
4 dissatisfied carbon emissions and/or failure to meet target by up to 2.99%. This concern should be itemised in the scheme issues
register and recorded in the record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of scheme sustainability planning and deployment are satisfactory or, where they are not, are balanced by
others being exceeded. Supplier engages fully with HA, the public and their supply chain to ensure that the project
and client sustainable aspirations are achieved. The project sustainability strategy is clear across all areas of the
6 Satisfied supply chain, aligns with the overall HA sustainability action plan and focuses on the triple bottom line (economy,
social & environment). Plans are in place covering material sourcing, recycling, waste management, travel and
management of resources. Relevant carbon emission measures are produced monthly which link to the HAs
sustainability strategy and specific sustainability targets (if applicable) are being met or exceeded by up to 2.99%.
Agreed plans are in place covering diversity and training, including the apprenticeship programme. The supplier is
taking all reasonable steps to achieve the targets set, both directly and across their supply chain. The supplier
communicates to its workforce the wider skills opportunities available and updates HA on progress in developing and
deploying people inclusion plans. Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered and PCF environmental products
are satisfactory. Any best practise to be shared with other schemes the supplier has with the HA.
All aspects are satisfactory and there is evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation, including key
suppliers across the supply chain. Supplier meets wider sustainability initiatives and targets from bodies such as
WRAP. Relevant targets (if applicable) and the wider industry sustainability targets from bodies such as WRAP are
exceeded by 3 - 5%. Scheme will normally have won an external sustainability award and/or a CEEQUAL Very Good
award. The supplier exceeds their agreed target number of apprentices by up to 5%. Supplier is proactive in
8 Highly satisfied identifying notable best practice and can evidence that (i) they have undertaken additional work above their work
package specification (not initiated or requested by the HA) which provides a benefit to the scheme/HA, and (ii) the
details of this work have been submitted to the Knowledge Bank team (unless outside the scope of their defined
selectivity criteria). No early warning or compensation event/strategic risk event has been raised to increase the value
of the work package for this work.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. Relevant targets (if applicable) and the wider industry sustainability
targets from bodies such as WRAP are exceeded by >5%. Scheme will normally have won an external sustainability
award and/or a CEEQUAL Excellent award. All aspects of people inclusion considerably exceed HA expectation
Exceptionally across the whole supply chain. The supplier exceeds their agreed target number of apprentices by greater than 5%.
10 satisfied Supplier can evidence that any best practice identified and accepted within the definition of the 8 scoring criteria

Purpose To manage risk and opportunities effectively
Risk Management Plan (including provision for escalation).
Risk Register.
Quantitative risk assessment.
Qualitative risk assessment.
Risk Mitigation Plan.
Opportunities Register.
Quality Standard
Compliance with risk management good practice.
Evidence
Relationship between Early Warnings/Compensation Events and Risk Register.
Evidence of review meetings (showing dates, actions and effectiveness of follow-up for both Supplier and their supply
chain).
Evidence of Supplier being proactive across their supply chain.
Evidence of training and awareness sessions.
Senior management involvement.
PCF products.
Details of risk meetings including sub-Suppliers.
Source of Data Tender documentation.
Risk Register and related documentation.
Early Warnings and Compensation Events.
Other Information to be This measure reflects performance in the six months up to and including the reporting period.
considered
Totally
0 dissatisfied
Very
2 dissatisfied
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of risk management are satisfactory or, where they are not, are balanced by others being exceeded. Risks
and opportunities have been identified, documented, assessed and managed across the extended supply chain in a
structured way in accordance with the MP Risk Management Manual. They are reviewed monthly through the
6 Satisfied Development and Construction phases. Appropriate mitigation plans are in place with named owners. All PCF
products are satisfactory. Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered. Any best practise to be shared with other
All aspects are satisfactory and there is evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. Supplier
demonstrates that significant avoidable risks are being managed effectively and significant opportunities have been
taken. Risk review is demonstrated to be proactive, timely and effective. Supplier is proactive in identifying notable
best practice and can evidence that (i) they have undertaken additional work above their work package specification
8 Highly satisfied
(not initiated or requested by the HA) which provides a benefit to the scheme/HA, and (ii) the details of this work have
been submitted to the Knowledge Bank team (unless outside the scope of their defined selectivity criteria). No early
work.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. Supplier proactively manages risk with the whole supply chain and
can demonstrate that all risks within their control have been managed successfully and that all opportunities have
Exceptionally been taken. All risks materialising were recorded initially as potential on the risk register or are so unusual that they
10 satisfied could not have been anticipated. Supplier can evidence that any best practice identified and accepted within the
definition of the 8 scoring criteria (above) has been either (i) deployed on schemes delivered by other suppliers or (ii)
led to HA processes being changed and improved.

Purpose To manage On Time reliability measure within the constraints agreed with NDD or the Project Manager
Target agreed with NDD or the Project Manager.
Quality Standard
Performance against target.
Evidence
Robust application of the agreed process for measuring On Time reliability measure
Source of Data Depends on nature of measurement agreed with NDD or Project Manager.
On Time reliability measure is one of HAs business plan targets and schemes in construction contribute to achieving
it. This toolkit does not seek to prescribe the target to be agreed or the form of measurement. It does require
Other Information to be agreement with NDD on target(s) for the network directly and indirectly affected by the scheme and the nature of
considered measurement. If no target has been agreed with NDD or the Project manager, this KPI will become n/a.

On Time reliability measure is currently >5% below target within the reporting period or measurement has not been
Totally
0 dissatisfied
actively considered. The project manager should have written to the appropriate suppliers director and HA SRO to
inform them of this concern which should also be itemised in the scheme issues register.
On Time reliability measure is currently 3 - 5% below target within the reporting period. Alternatively, plans to
Very measure The Reliability Measure have been considered but not yet formulated. The project manager should have
2 dissatisfied escalated this concern in writing to the suppliers senior management and HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in
the scheme issues register.
On Time reliability measure is currently up to 2.99% below target within the reporting period. Alternatively, plans have
Slightly been agreed to measure The Reliability Measure but not yet implemented in an appropriate or timely fashion. This
4 dissatisfied concern should be itemised in the scheme issues register and recorded in the record of progress meeting
minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
A cost effective On Time reliability measure target has been agreed with NDD, or Project Manager. The On Time
6 Satisfied reliability measure is measured appropriately in the network directly and indirectly affected by the scheme. Reliability
Measure improvement is up to 2.99% against target within the reporting period.
A cost effective On Time reliability measure target has been agreed with NDD, or Project Manager, for in the network
8 Highly satisfied directly and indirectly affected by the scheme. On Time reliability measure improvement is 3 - 5% against target
within the reporting period.
A cost effective On Time reliability measure target has been agreed with NDD, or Project Manager, for in the network
Exceptionally
10 satisfied
directly and indirectly affected by the scheme. On Time reliability measure improvement is >5% against target within
the reporting period.

Purpose To demonstrate improvements to time, cost and health & safety through innovation.
Evidence of Value Management workshops being undertaken at appropriate intervals and attended by appropriate
personnel.
Quality Standard Evidence of Managing Down Costs (MDC) and other toolkits being used.
Evidence
Evidence of appropriately calculated benefits feeding directly into scheme forecasts.
Evidence of approach being fully visible to HA and Supplier supporting HA in deploying best practice
Minutes/action points from workshops.
Workshop outputs.
PCF products.
Supplier records.
Source of Data Scheme records.
Scheme time/cost forecasts.
Scheme budget.
Value Plan.
Value Opportunities Register.
Innovation cost saving is cumulative for the phase and should be measured against the latest agreed HIB scheme
budget.
Other Information to be Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are
considered accepted by the HA. This does not include buying savings, value engineering and ideas from the Managing Down
Costs toolkit.
Time saving is also cumulative for the phase and should be measured against the agreed scheme plan.
Score Satisfaction CONVENTIONAL SCHEMES Quality Criteria DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION
Totally
0 dissatisfied
Very
2 dissatisfied
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of innovation are satisfactory or, where they are not, are balanced by others being exceeded. A structured
mechanism is in place (including Value Management processes) to encourage the use and evaluation of innovation
and continuous improvement. Effective reviews are undertaken at appropriate intervals. Whole Life Cost is fully
6 Satisfied considered. Managing Down Costs and other toolkits are applied as appropriate. Agreed innovation savings in terms
of time and/or cost of up to 2.99% of the scheme/programme timescale and/or budget. Agreed tender undertakings
are being delivered. Any best practise to be shared with other schemes the supplier has with the HA.
All aspects are satisfactory and there is evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. Agreed
innovation savings in terms of time and/or cost of 3 -10% of the scheme/programme timescale and/or budget. Detail
is shared fully with HA. An innovation has been incorporated onto the MDC Toolkit. Alternatively, other innovation
which does not have cost or time benefit is applied on this scheme and to others schemes. Supplier is proactive in
identifying notable best practice and can evidence that (i) they have undertaken additional work above their work
8 Highly satisfied
package specification (not initiated or requested by the HA) which provides a benefit to the scheme/HA, (ii) the details
of this work have been submitted to the Knowledge Bank team (unless outside the scope of their defined selectivity
criteria). No early warning or compensation event/strategic risk event has been raised to increase the value of the
work package for this work.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably across the whole of the Supplier's supply chain. Agreed innovation
savings in terms of time and/or cost >10% of the scheme/programme timescale and/or budget. Alternatively, other
Exceptionally innovation which does not have cost or time benefit on this scheme is significant and will be applied to other
10 satisfied schemes. Supplier can evidence that any best practice identified and accepted within the definition of the 8 scoring
criteria (above) has been either (i) deployed on schemes delivered by other suppliers or (ii) led to HA processes being
No.3.1 - RFT - ATTACHMENT 13

Purpose To deploy and manage quality processes & demonstrate effectiveness of quality processes through independent
audit
Suppliers documented Quality Management Plan. Sub-Suppliers Quality Management Plan.
Supplier's corporate products and initiatives will only be accepted if they have been created for this scheme.
Compliance with tender undertakings.
Proactive ownership of quality processes across supply chain.
Quality Standard Quality failures/defects reported. Root cause analysis and corrective action arising from quality failures.
Evidence Award from external body (where appropriate).
Evidence of implementing Lean. Status of Lean assessment.
Timetable of planned audits. Timetable of actual audits.
Qualification of audit team. Reporting lines of audit team.
Nature of recommendations. Resolution of audit recommendations.
Source of Data Suppliers records. Quality defects records. Contract documents. Audit reports. Defects reports.
Results should be used to validate the scoring for Attachment 13 Manage effective quality processes and controls.
It is accepted that the Suppliers personnel will routinely undertake audits of Quality Management Systems. The
Other Information to be independence reference relates to the reporting lines and organisational responsibility of the auditors.
considered
The result of HA inspections (if appropriate) should be incorporated into this score.
Totally This includes quality audits undertaken >2 months late, key significant non-compliance reported or previous
0 dissatisfied recommendations not actioned. The project manager should have written to the appropriate suppliers director and
HA SRO to inform them of this concern which should also be itemised in the scheme issues register.
Very required. This includes audits undertaken 1 - 2 months late, key significant non-compliance reported or previous
2 dissatisfied recommendations not actioned within 2 months. The project manager should have escalated this concern in writing to
the suppliers senior management and HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in the scheme issues register.
Slightly the project manager seeks improvement. Unacceptable aspects include quality audits undertaken up to one month
4 dissatisfied late, more significant non-compliance reported or past audits not actioned within an appropriate timescale. This
concern should be itemised in the scheme issues register and recorded in the record of progress meeting
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of quality management and audit review are satisfactory or, where they are not, are balanced by others
being exceeded. An overall Quality Plan is in place and implemented which identifies agreed QM controls, process
and timescale for quality audits. Supplier demonstrates evidence of proactive ownership at senior management level.
Robust arrangements are in place for identifying and quantifying quality failures, taking appropriate corrective action
and implementing lessons learned. The Suppliers Lean capability score has been completed and moderated. The
6 Satisfied Contractor has improved their lean capability score in line with the plan agreed with HA.
Quality Management Systems are in place with routine appropriate audits planned across the whole supply chain and
undertaken on time. The audit team is appropriately qualified and reporting lines demonstrate scheme independence
(e.g. reporting to a Board member). Past audit recommendations been resolved within appropriate timescales.
Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered. Any best practice to be shared with other schemes the supplier has
with the HA.
All aspects are satisfactory and there is evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. Processes are
aligned with HA which has confidence that key quality aspects of the contract will be delivered. Lean quality
processes across the whole of their supply chain are fully visible and proven to be effective. Quality failures are minor
and resultant action is timely, effective and fully visible to HA. Good progress is being made on the Contractors Lean
capability score relating to the self assessment/moderation process. The Contractor has improved their lean
capability score by up to 4.99% more than the plan agreed with HA.
8 Highly satisfied
Only minor issues have been reported requiring corrective action. Supplier is proactive in identifying notable best
practice and can evidence that (i) they have undertaken additional work above their work package specification (not
initiated or requested by the HA) which provides a benefit to the scheme/HA, and (ii) the details of this work have
work.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. Quality processes across the whole Suppliers supply chain are
visible to the HA and proven to be fully effective. Processes are aligned with the HA which has confidence that all
aspects of the contract will be delivered. Quality failures are minor and resultant action is fully visible to HA. Excellent
progress is being made on the Contractors Lean capability score relating to the self assessment/moderation process.
The Contractor has improved their lean capability score by more than 5% than the plan agreed with HA.
Exceptionally
10 satisfied
Exceptionally
10 satisfied Structured quality audits are undertaken on time across the Suppliers whole supply chain, all results are shared
promptly and proactively with HA and no issues have been reported requiring corrective action. Past audit
recommendations have been resolved promptly in all cases. Supplier can evidence that any best practice identified
and accepted within the definition of the 8 scoring criteria (above) has been either (i) deployed on schemes delivered
by other suppliers or (ii) led to HA processes being changed and improved.

Purpose To ensure that key information and actions do not require avoidable rework
Key information is that which has the ability to impact on time, cost or quality of project deliverables or which is
required for the management of the overall programme. It includes (but is not exclusive to) the following:
PCF products.
Design and survey data.
Response to complaints and objections.
Early Warnings.
Other non-financial information.
Scheme cost out turn forecasts.
Quality Standard Unit cost data.
Evidence Final accounts.
Quotations requested.
EVM and MST data.
CRaMS data.
Monthly assessments.
Monthly accruals.
Other financial information.
CE Tracker.
A tracker should be produced to evidence work that did not require rework.
Project records.
CRaMS returns.
Source of Data Feedback received from Commercial, Portfolio Office, Finance and other directorates.
Feedback from Employers Agent.
Recorded actions from progress meetings.
Where it is agreed that the supplier will issue drafts designed to prompt feedback, project managers will need to
exercise judgement on where rework sits on a scale from unavoidable fine tuning to fundamental avoidable rework.
This score should be cross referenced to the score under Attachment 13 Manage effective quality processes and
Other Information to be controls.
considered
Where the principal output is task order administration (including supplier performance and financial management)
the score agreed will be n/a.
<79% of key information provided within the period is accepted as right first time. The project manager should have
Totally
0 dissatisfied
written to the appropriate Suppliers director and HA SRO to inform them of this concern which should also be
itemised in the scheme issues register.
80 - 84.9% of key information provided within the period is accepted as right first time, with the remainder requiring
Very only minor avoidable iteration, or two items requiring significant avoidable rework. The project manager should have
85 - 89.9% of key information provided within the period is accepted as right first time, with the remainder requiring
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
minor avoidable iteration, or one item requires significant avoidable rework. This concern should be itemised in the
scheme issues register and recorded in the record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All requirements of the timely delivery of tasks and information of this measure are satisfied, or where they are not,
6 Satisfied are balanced by others being exceeded. 90 - 97.9% of key information provided within the period is accepted as right
first time, with the remainder requiring only minor avoidable iteration.
All aspects are satisfactory and some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. 98 - 99.9% of key information provided
8 Highly satisfied
within the period is accepted as right first time, with the remainder only requiring minor avoidable iteration.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. 100% of key information including items which impact on the critical
Exceptionally
10 satisfied
path and 100% of non-key information provided within the period is accepted as right first time. Both Project Manager
and Commercial Performance Manager must agree all information was right first time.

Purpose To minimise and manage Non-Conformance Reports (NCRs) and defects for Construction activity
Non-Conformance Reports.
Process for identifying defects.
Process for investigating the cause of defects.
Quality Standard
Process for mitigating impact and ensuring that such defects are avoided in the future.
Evidence
Process for informing HA.
Evidence of compliance to the above processes.
Significance of defects.
Defects Reports.
Defects Log.
Source of Data
Issues Log.
Defects should continue to be reported fully. The score for this measure should not be impacted by a higher number
of minor defects reported by diligent Suppliers unless this is deemed to reflect poor quality control. The intention is
that this score should reflect the severity of defects on the overall cost, time and disruption to the scheme and how
they are managed.
considered Reporting should begin on this measure in the forth month after Notice to Proceed.
This score should be cross referenced to the score under Attachment 13 Manage effective quality processes and
controls.
Score Satisfaction CONSTRUCTION Quality Criteria
Totally
0 dissatisfied
Very
2 dissatisfied
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All requirements of NCRs and defect management are satisfied, or where they are not, are balanced by others being
exceeded. NCRs and Material defects within the period are identified and reported to HA promptly. Timely
mitigation/remedial action is taken, the cause of the NCRs and defect is investigated and appropriate steps are taken
6 Satisfied to avoid a recurrence. HA is satisfied with the nature, frequency and severity of defects within the period and the
cumulative position. Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered. Any best practise to be shared with other
All aspects are satisfactory and some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. All NCRs and defects through
construction are identified comprehensively and communicated to HA promptly. Timely mitigation/remedial action is
8 Highly satisfied taken, the cause of the NCR and defect is investigated and appropriate steps are taken to avoid a recurrence. The
number and severity of incidents is minimal. There is a high level of confidence that only a minimal number of minor
defects will be outstanding at scheme handover.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. Robust processes are in place to identify report, mitigate and
manage all NCRs and defects, and no defects have been reported currently remain open. There is a high level of
Exceptionally confidence that no NCRs and defects will be outstanding at scheme handover. Both Project Manager and
10 satisfied Commercial Performance Manager must agree performance is exceptional and that it is likely no NCRs and defects
will be outstanding at scheme handover.

Purpose To measure the effectiveness of resource management for Construction activity
Robust management information relating to labour, vehicles, equipment, plant and materials.
Quality Standard
Summary management information for Supplier and their supply chain.
Evidence
More detailed information where required.
Labour productivity reports (lost time through waiting for materials, adverse weather condition, etc).
Excess wastage and/or surplus materials identified as a result of over ordering and/or other relevant circumstances.
Source of Data
Vehicle and equipment utilisation reports.
Defective materials not replaced by the supplier.
This measure links to the quality process. It reflects the Suppliers capability to measure resource utilisation for
Other Information to be labour, vehicles, equipment and materials for themselves and their supply chain, produce meaningful and appropriate
considered management information and engage with HA on improvement opportunities.
Totally
0 dissatisfied
Very
2 dissatisfied
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All requirements of resource management are satisfied, or where they are not, are balanced by others being
exceeded. Supplier has a robust process in place to quantify resource utilisation and materials waste for themselves
and key members of their supply chain. Comprehensive monthly and trend management information is produced to
show unproductive and wasted resource as % of overall activity for labour, plant and materials. Supporting
6 Satisfied
management information (including trends) is available and shared with HA. Supplier can demonstrate that there are
effective processes to take improvement action where necessary and this is fully visible to HA. Agreed tender
undertakings are being delivered. Any best practise to be shared with other schemes the supplier has with the HA.
All aspects are satisfactory and some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. Supplier has a robust process in place
to quantify resource utilisation and materials waste for themselves and all members of their supply chain. Supporting
management information (including trends) is available and shared with HA, together with plans for improvement
action. Supplier is proactive in identifying notable best practice and can evidence that (i) they have undertaken
8 Highly satisfied additional work above their work package specification (not initiated or requested by the HA) which provides a benefit
to the scheme/HA, and (ii) the details of this work have been submitted to the Knowledge Bank team (unless outside
the scope of their defined selectivity criteria). No early warning or compensation event/strategic risk event has been
raised to increase the value of the work package for this work.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably and clearly link with the Suppliers Quality Plan. Supplier can
Exceptionally evidence that any best practice identified and accepted within the definition of the 8 scoring criteria (above) has been
10 satisfied either (i) deployed on schemes delivered by other suppliers or (ii) led to HA processes being changed and improved.
No.4.1 - COST - ATTACHMENT 17

Purpose To complete the phase within the Development Phase Budget (not applicable to MM schemes)
Development Phase Budget.
Quality Standard Forecast Development Phase out turn.
Evidence Development Phase cost review and update.
Adjustments for agreed change control.
SfM Oracle.
CRaMS data.
Source of Data
Phase records on other agreed change control events.
SHARE.
The base for this measure is the latest Construction Phase Budget approved by HIB. Includes supplier and HA direct
costs.
There may be circumstances where there is a significant change in output or scope which is entirely outside the
Other Information to be suppliers control and not covered by a risk provision. In these circumstances, the SRO will take a view on whether it
considered is appropriate to authorise a change control adjustment to the base line for the purpose of calculating this score.
In the extremely rare circumstance that the calculation exactly equals zero, a score of 6 should be recorded.
This measure is cumulative over the duration of the development phase.
Forecast phase cost has not been reviewed/updated for over three months and/or forecast cost is >10% above
Totally
0 dissatisfied
agreed development phase budget The project manager should have written to the appropriate suppliers director
and HA SRO to inform them of this concern which should also be itemised in the scheme issues register.
Forecast phase cost has not been reviewed/updated for three months and/or forecast cost is 5 - 10% above agreed
Very
2 dissatisfied
development phase budget. The project manager should have escalated this concern in writing to the suppliers
senior management and HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in the scheme issues register.
Forecast phase cost has not been reviewed/updated for two months and/or forecast is up to 4.99% above agreed
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
development phase budget. This concern should be itemised in the scheme issues register and recorded in the
record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
Forecast out turn for development phase is reviewed/updated monthly. Forecast cost is up to 4.99% below agreed
6 Satisfied
phase development budget.
Forecast out turn for development phase is reviewed/updated monthly. Forecast cost is 5 - 10% below agreed phase
8 Highly satisfied
development budget.
Exceptionally Forecast out turn for development phase is reviewed/updated monthly. Forecast cost is >10% below agreed
10 satisfied development phase budget.

Purpose To complete the phase within the Construction Phase Budget
Construction Phase Budget.
Quality Standard Forecast Construction Phase out turn.
Evidence Construction phase cost review and update.
Adjustments for agreed change control.
SfM Oracle.
CRaMS data.
Source of Data Compensation Events.
Phase records on other agreed change control events.
SHARE.
The base for this measure is the latest Construction Phase Budget approved by HIB. Includes supplier and HA direct
costs.
Other Information to be suppliers control and not covered by a risk provision. In these circumstances, the SRO will take a view on whether it
considered is appropriate to authorise a change control adjustment to the base line for the purpose of calculating this score.
In the extremely rare circumstance that the calculation exactly equals zero, a score of 6 should be recorded.
This measure is cumulative over the duration of the construction phase.
Forecast construction phase cost has not been reviewed/updated for over three months and/or forecast cost is >10%
Totally
0 dissatisfied
above agreed construction phase budget The project manager should have written to the appropriate suppliers
director and HA SRO to inform them of this concern which should also be itemised in the scheme issues register.
Forecast construction phase cost has not been reviewed/updated for three months and/or forecast cost is 5 - 10%
Very
2 dissatisfied
above agreed construction phase budget. The project manager should have escalated this concern in writing to the
suppliers senior management and HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in the scheme issues register.
Forecast construction phase cost has not been reviewed/updated for two months and/or forecast is up to 4.99%
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
above agreed construction phase budget. This concern should be itemised in the scheme issues register and
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
Forecast out turn for construction phase is reviewed/updated monthly. Forecast cost is up to 4.99% below agreed
6 Satisfied
construction phase budget.
Forecast out turn for construction phase is reviewed/updated monthly. Forecast cost is 5 - 10% below agreed
8 Highly satisfied
construction phase budget.
Exceptionally Forecast out turn for construction phase is reviewed/updated monthly. Forecast cost is >10% below agreed
10 satisfied construction phase budget.

Purpose To achieve the Cost Performance Index (CPI) target for the Phase
EVM data provided by HA Commercial.
Quality Standard
Compensation Event data.
Evidence
Project Plan.
CRaMS returns.
Source of Data
Published EVM data.
Earned Value CPI performance is that reported by the HA Commercial Team. Other sources of EV calculation (if
applicable) are not relevant.
Should use the latter month's results to reflect the cumulative nature of the scoring. For example: April to May, the
considered
MST will use the HA CPI results as at the end of May.
This measure is cumulative over the duration of the phase.
HA calculation of the cumulative Supplier phase CPI is <0.90. The project manager should have written to the
Totally
0 dissatisfied
appropriate suppliers director and HA SRO to inform them of this concern which should also be itemised in the
scheme issues register.
HA calculation of the cumulative Supplier phase CPI is in the range 0.90 - 0.949. The project manager should have
Very
2 dissatisfied
escalated this concern in writing to the suppliers senior management and HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in
Slightly HA calculation of the cumulative Supplier phase CPI is in the range 0.95 - 0.99. This concern should be itemised in
4 dissatisfied the scheme issues register and recorded in the record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
6 Satisfied HA calculation of the cumulative Supplier phase CPI is in the range 1.00 - 1.049.
8 Highly satisfied HA calculation of the cumulative Supplier phase CPI is in the range 1.05 - 1.10.
Exceptionally HA calculation of the cumulative Supplier phase CPI is >1.10
10 satisfied

Purpose To forecast reliably for the current financial year
Quality Standard Agreed spend profile.
Evidence Change control agreed including Compensation Events/Strategic Risk Events.
SfM Oracle.
Source of Data CRaMS data.
HA Business Plan financial data submitted to HA Finance before the start of the current financial year.
The base for this measure is the cumulative spend profile within the year agreed by HA. There may be circumstances
where there is a significant change which is not covered by a risk provision. In these circumstances, the SRO may
agree to any change to the spend profile used as a base for this measure. This includes the two examples given
below:
1. HA instructs the Supplier to change the agreed spend profile after the start of the year.
2. During the Construction phase, costs may decrease because of an improved CPI or increase because of an
improved SPI. Where this has been agreed with HA and fully accounts for the cost variation, the Commercial
Performance Manager may increase the reliability score to 6. If the HA or a third party have fundamentally changed
the scope or milestone dates, the Commercial Performance Manager may increase the reliability score to 6.
For the first MST submission after an agreed re-baseline under point 2, this will be scored 'na', unless otherwise
considered
advised by the Commercial Performance Manager. If the MST submission straddles two financial years (March and
April), then the position at the end of March should be used.
The Supplier will include assumed savings when providing HA with an annual forecast of monthly spend. They should
be asked to explain material differences between forecast and actual, particularly relating to savings before any score
base adjustments are agreed.
Should use the latter month's results to reflect the cumulative nature of the scoring. For example: April to May, the
MST will use the forecast and actual results as at the end of May. Outturn should not be used for this measure.
This measure is cumulative over the current financial year.
Cumulative Supplier phase spend for the financial year exceeds the amount stated in the cumulative spend profile
Totally approved by HA at the start of the year by 10% after adjusting for relevant material change control agreed by the
0 dissatisfied SRO. The project manager should have written to the appropriate suppliers director and HA SRO to inform them of
this concern which should also be itemised in the scheme issues register.
Cumulative Supplier phase spend for the financial year is within 10% of the amount stated in the cumulative spend
Very profile approved by HA at the start of the year after adjusting for relevant material change control agreed by the SRO.
2 dissatisfied The project manager should have escalated this concern in writing to the suppliers senior management and HA
SRO. Detail should also be recorded in the scheme issues register.
Slightly profile approved by HA at the start of the year after adjusting for relevant material change control agreed by the SRO.
4 dissatisfied This concern should be itemised in the scheme issues register and recorded in the record of progress meeting
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
Cumulative Supplier phase spend for the financial year is within 5 % of the amount stated in the cumulative spend
6 Satisfied profile approved by HA at the start of the year after adjusting for relevant material change control events agreed by
the SRO.
8 Highly satisfied profile approved by HA at the start of the year after adjusting for relevant material change control events agreed by
the SRO.
Exceptionally Cumulative Supplier phase spend for the financial year is <1% of the amount stated in the cumulative spend profile
10 satisfied approved by HA at the start of the year after adjusting for relevant material change control events agreed by the
SRO.

Purpose To ensure that Compensation Events/Strategic Risk Events are priced accurately
Quality Standard
Ratio of cumulative CEs/SREs agreed and the original Supplier cumulative of those quotations submitted.
Evidence
Source of Data CE/SRE Change Control Tracker in CRaMS.
This measure is based on Compensation Events/Strategic Risk Events first initial quotations being priced by the
Supplier and subsequently reviewed and agreed by HA. It therefore excludes quotations priced but not yet agreed by
HA.
Other Information to be If the scope of the CE/SRE changes from the point at which the quotation is prepared to when it is agreed, an
considered appropriate adjustment should be made in order to ensure that the two are directly comparable. Adjustment should
be made for negative CEs/SREs influence on final calculation (consult with Commercial Performance Manager).
This measure is cumulative over the duration of the phase.
Cumulative scheme CE/SRE value agreed by the HA is <80% of the cumulative value estimated at initial quotation.
Totally
0 dissatisfied
Cumulative scheme CE/SRE value agreed by the HA is within 80.0 - 84.9% of the cumulative value estimated at
Very
2 dissatisfied
initial quotation. The project manager should have escalated this concern in writing to the suppliers senior
management and HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in the scheme issues register.
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
initial quotation. This concern should be itemised in the scheme issues register and recorded in the record of
progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
6 Satisfied
initial quotation.
8 Highly satisfied
initial quotation.
Exceptionally Cumulative scheme CE/SRE value agreed by the HA is within 97.0 - 100% of the value estimated at initial quotation.
10 satisfied
No.5.1 - TIME - ATTACHMENT 22

Purpose To complete the Development phase within the agreed timescale (not applicable to MM schemes)
Agreed development phase timescale.
Quality Standard Schedule of work completed.
Evidence Adjustments for agreed change control.
Agreed Compensation Events.
Development Phase Project Plan.
Project records.
Source of Data
Change control.
Suppliers time forecasts.
The base for this measure is the agreed completion date for the phase.
Planned = Development Phase duration agreed with PM

Forecast = Agreed monthly assessment of out turn duration
Example
Development completion agreed as 36 weeks duration
Other Information to be Development completed in 32 weeks
considered Time saving: (36 - 32)/36 = 11.5%
The base for this measure is the Phase time agreed at Stage Gate.
There may be circumstances where there is a subsequent significant change in output or scope which is entirely
outside the suppliers control and not covered by a risk provision. In these circumstances, the SRO will take a view on
whether it is appropriate to authorise a change control adjustment to the baseline for the purpose of calculating this
score.
This measure is cumulative over the duration of the development phase.
Planned/actual (or forecast) phase completion >10% later than the agreed development phase completion date after
Totally adjusting for relevant material change control agreed by the SRO. The project manager should have written to the
0 dissatisfied appropriate suppliers and HA directors to inform them of this concern which should also be itemised in the scheme
risk register.
Planned/actual (or forecast) phase completion 5 - 10% later than the agreed development phase completion date
Very after adjusting for relevant material change control agreed by the SRO. The project manager should have escalated
2 dissatisfied this concern in writing to the suppliers senior management and HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in the
scheme risk register.
Planned/actual (or forecast) phase completion up to 4.99% later than the agreed development phase completion date
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
after adjusting for relevant material change control agreed by the SRO. This concern should be itemised in the
scheme issues register and recorded in the record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
Planned/actual (or forecast) development phase completion up to 2.99% earlier than the agreed development phase
6 Satisfied
completion date after adjusting for relevant material change control agreed by the SRO.
Planned/actual (or forecast) development phase completion 3 - 5 % earlier than the agreed development phase
8 Highly satisfied
Exceptionally Planned/actual (or forecast) development phase completion >5% earlier than the agreed development phase
10 satisfied completion date after adjusting for relevant material change control agreed by the SRO.

To complete the Construction phase within the agreed timescale
Agreed construction phase timescale.
Quality Standard Schedule of work completed.
Evidence Adjustments for agreed change control.
Agreed Compensation Events.
Construction Phase Plan.
Project records.
Source of Data
Change control.
Suppliers time forecasts.
The base for this measure is the agreed completion date for the scheme (to Open for Traffic).
Planned = Construction Phase duration agreed with PM

Forecast = Agreed monthly assessment of out turn duration
Example
Other Information to be Construction completion agreed as 36 weeks duration
considered Construction completed in 32 weeks
Time saving: (36 - 32)/36 = 11.5%
The base for this measure is the Construction timescale agreed with DfT.
suppliers control and not covered by a risk provision. In these circumstances, the SRO will take a view on whether it
is appropriate to authorise a change control adjustment to the baseline for the purpose of calculating this score.
This measure is cumulative over the duration of the construction phase.
Planned/actual (or forecast) construction phase completion >10% later than the agreed construction phase
Totally completion date after adjusting for relevant material change control agreed by the SRO. The project manager should
0 dissatisfied have written to the appropriate suppliers director and HA SRO to inform them of this concern which should also be
itemised in the scheme issues register.
Planned/actual (or forecast) construction phase completion 5 - 10 % later than the agreed construction phase
Very completion date after adjusting for relevant material change control agreed by the SRO. The project manager should
2 dissatisfied have escalated this concern in writing to the suppliers senior management and HA SRO. Detail should also be
recorded in the scheme issues register.
Planned/actual (or forecast) construction phase completion up to 4.99% later than the agreed construction phase
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
completion date after adjusting for relevant material change control agreed by the SRO. This concern should be
itemised in the scheme issues register and recorded in the record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
Planned/actual (or forecast) construction phase completion up to 2.99% earlier than the agreed construction phase
6 Satisfied
Planned/actual (or forecast) construction phase completion 3 - 5% earlier than the agreed construction phase
8 Highly satisfied
Exceptionally Planned/actual (or forecast) construction phase completion >5% earlier than the agreed construction phase
10 satisfied completion date after adjusting for relevant material change control agreed by the SRO.

Purpose To achieve the Schedule Performance Index (SPI) target for the Phase
EVM data provided by HA Commercial.
Quality Standard
Compensation Event data.
Evidence
Project Plan.
CRaMS returns.
Source of Data
Published EVM data.
Earned Value SPI performance is that reported by the HA Commercial Team. Other sources of EVM calculation (if
applicable) are not relevant.
The baseline for this measure is the fully detailed and costed work programme with granularity and deliverables
agreed with the project manager. There may be circumstances where there is a significant change in output or scope
which is entirely outside the suppliers control and not covered by a risk provision. In these circumstances, the SRO
will take a view on whether it is appropriate to authorise a change control adjustment to the baseline work
Other Information to be programme.
considered Should use the latter month's results to reflect the cumulative nature of the scoring. For example: April to May, the
MST will use the HA SPI results as at the end of May. If the MST submission straddles two financial years (March and
April), then the position at the end of March should be used.
For the first MST submission after an agreed re-baseline this will be scored 'na'. If the MSTs closing period is April,
coinciding with the annual re-baseline, this may be scored 'na': Commercial Performance Manager to advise.
This measure is cumulative over the duration of the Phase.
HA calculation of the cumulative Suppliers phase SPI <0.90. The project manager should have written to the
Totally
0 dissatisfied
HA calculation of the cumulative Supplier phase SPI is in the range 0.90 - 0.949. The project manager should have
Very
2 dissatisfied
escalated this concern in writing to the suppliers senior management and HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in
Slightly HA calculation of the cumulative Supplier phase SPI is in the range 0.95 - 0.99. This concern should be itemised in
4 dissatisfied the scheme issues register and recorded in the record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
6 Satisfied HA calculation of the cumulative Supplier phase SPI is in the range 1.00 - 1.029.
8 Highly satisfied HA calculation of the cumulative Supplier phase SPI is in the range 1.03 - 1.05.
Exceptionally HA calculation of the cumulative Supplier phase SPI is >1.05.
10 satisfied

To ensure timely response to key information and action required by HA and other relevant stakeholders within the
Purpose period
Key information is that which has the ability to impact on time, cost or quality of project deliverables or which is
required for the management of the overall programme. It includes (but is not exclusive to) the following:
Timely forecasts of phase/scheme cost out turn.
PCF products.
Design and survey data.
Response to complaints and objections.
Early Warnings and Compensation Events.
Other non-financial information.
Quotations requested.
EVM/CRaMS data and MST data.
Monthly accruals.
Other financial information.
Quality Standard
HAIL enquiries.
Evidence
Stakeholders include:
DfT.
HA Project Team. HA Portfolio Office. The HUB.
Commercial & Procurement
Public Inquiry team.
Network Delivery & Development (NDD).
Network Services (NetServ).
Finance & Business Services (FBS).
Road users.
The general public.
Local communities.
Media.
Project plan.
Correspondence Reporting System.
PQ and complaint response times.
Minutes of progress meetings (actions carried forward).
Source of Data Feedback from Commercial Division.
Feedback from FS (accruals, etc).
Feedback from NDD.
Feedback from HAIL.
A tracker should be produced to evidence when work was received.
Key information and actions will be determined by the Project Manager. They will normally be issues which impact
on the critical path or present other significant difficulties. Challenging and realistic deadlines should be agreed with
the supplier for planned work. Unplanned short notice work to be scored in 2.1.
If an 8 or a 10 has been achieved for two or more consecutive MST periods, the timescales for deliverables should
be reviewed, with the view of making them more challenging if the score of 8 or 10 is to be maintained
considered
Where the principal output is task order administration (including supplier performance and financial management)
the score agreed will be n/a.
This is rounded to the nearest day.
Response time generally >3 working days later than agreed date due. The project manager should have written to the
Totally
0 dissatisfied
Response time generally 2 - 3 working days later than agreed due date. The project manager should have escalated
Very
2 dissatisfied
this concern in writing to the suppliers senior management and HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in the
Slightly Response time generally up to 1 working day later than agreed due date. This concern should be itemised in the
4 dissatisfied scheme issues register and recorded in the record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of the timely response to agreed actions and information are satisfactory or, where they are not, are
6 Satisfied
balanced by others being exceeded. Response time within the period generally in line with agreed date due.
All aspects are satisfactory and there is evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. Response time
8 Highly satisfied
within the period generally 1 - 3 working days earlier than agreed date due.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. Response time within the period generally >3 working days earlier
Exceptionally
10 satisfied
than agreed date due. Both Project Manager and Commercial Performance Manager must agrees performance is
exceptional.
No.6.1 - H&S - ATTACHMENT 26
To manage Health and Safety processes in Development & confirm effectiveness of Health & Safety management
Purpose through independent audit
Criteria to be considered with standards to be achieved as set out in CDM 2007 Approved Code of Practice: Appendix
4; Competence criteria 1 14, and in particular, Regulation 11 - Duties of Designers.
Supplier's corporate products and initiatives will only be accepted if they have been created for this scheme.
CDM Criteria: H&S policy and organisation. Arrangements. Co-operation/co-ordination with others.
Individuals qualifications and experience. Source of advice. Training and information. Workforce involvement.
Quality Standard
Monitoring, audit and review. Welfare - H&S policy commitment, contracts with welfare facility providers.
Evidence
Sub-Supplier consultation procedures. Sub-Supplier competency assessments. Hazard elimination and risk control.
Risk assessment procedural arrangements covering identification and control (sample risk assessments, safe
systems of work and method statements). Accident reporting, investigation and enforcement action.
PCF products: Pre-construction information, Construction Phase H&S plan, Form 10 Notification, H&S file and
Maintenance/Repair Strategy Statement. Other H&S legislation
Source of Data Products and Supplier records. H&S signed policy document and supporting detail.
considered
Score Satisfaction DEVELOPMENT Quality Criteria
More than one key aspect is currently unsatisfactory to the extent that it calls into question the suppliers capability.
Totally
0 dissatisfied
A key aspect is currently unsatisfactory to the extent that the project manager considers that significant intervention is
required. This includes H&S audits undertaken 2 - 4 weeks late, serious issues reported requiring urgent corrective
Very action or past significant recommendations not resolved within an appropriate timescale. The project manager should
2 dissatisfied have escalated this concern in writing to the suppliers senior management and HA SRO. Detail should also be
recorded in the scheme issues register. The project manager should have escalated this concern in writing to the
suppliers senior management and HA SRO. Detail should also be recorded in the scheme issues register.
Some minor aspects are unsatisfactory to the extent that the project manager seeks improvement but these do not
represent a risk of injury . Some minor audit aspects are currently unacceptable and slightly outweigh those which are
Slightly satisfactory to the extent that the project manager seeks improvement. This includes H&S audits undertaken up to 2
4 dissatisfied weeks late, more significant issues reported requiring corrective action or past minor recommendations not resolved
within an appropriate timescale. This concern should be itemised in the scheme issues register and recorded in the
record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of H&S management and audit review are satisfactory, including welfare issues. An overall H&S policy
and plan is produced and implemented for the public and all personnel working on visiting or travelling through the
area affected by the scheme. This includes site survey work and meetings attended by members of the public. Plan is
fully compliant with CDM 2007 Appendix 4; Competence criteria 1 - 14, and in particular, Regulation 11 - Duties of
Designers, and all other relevant legislation. Supplier can demonstrate competence training and regular H&S updates
for themselves and their supply chain. Robust arrangements are in place for identifying risks though risk
assessments/audit and reviewing near misses, taking appropriate corrective action and implementing lessons learnt.
6 Satisfied
H&S routine audits planned across the whole supply chain and undertaken on time. Suppliers audit team is
appropriately trained/qualified and reporting lines demonstrate independence. Past audit recommendations have
been resolved within an appropriate timescale. All aspects of audit review are satisfactory. H&S routine audits
planned across the whole supply chain and undertaken on time. Suppliers audit team is appropriately
trained/qualified and reporting lines demonstrate independence. Past audit recommendations been resolved within
appropriate timescales. Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered. Any best practise to be shared with other
All aspects are satisfactory and evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. Supplier can
demonstrate enhanced application of both CDM 2007 (Appendix 4; criteria 1-14) & welfare standards applied at all
levels, including their supply chain. Only minor issues reported requiring corrective action. Past audit
recommendations resolved within a timescale which reflects the importance of the issue reported. Supplier is
8 Highly satisfied proactive in identifying notable best practice and can evidence that (i) they have undertaken additional work above
All aspects considerably exceed HA expectation. Supplier is fully committed to job specific training, safe working
practices and the safety of the public. This includes director site safety tours. H&S failures are minor and resultant
action is fully visible to HA. Supplier can demonstrate active monitoring of their supply chain arrangements and
intervention (where necessary). Scheme has normally received an award from a recognised body for safety
management. Structured H&S audits undertaken on time across the Suppliers whole supply chain. Audit team is
Exceptionally
10 satisfied
appropriately trained/qualified and reporting lines demonstrate independence. All results are shared promptly with HA
and no issues reported requiring corrective action. Past audit recommendations resolved promptly in all cases.
To manage health and safety processes for Construction activity & confirm effectiveness of Health & Safety
Purpose management through independent audit
Criteria to be considered with standards to be achieved as set out in CDM 2007 Approved Code of Practice: Appendix
4; Competence criteria 1 - 14, and in particular, Stage 1 Assessment.
CDM Criteria: H&S policy and organisation. CDM Coordinator duties.
Names of appointed safety representatives and records of H&S committees.
Individuals qualifications and experience for specific corporate post holders and other key roles (e.g.. CITB
construction skills, NEBOSH, Construction certificate, etc).
Training including staff safety induction records, and evidence of continuous training.
Quality Standard
H&S policy and organisation. Arrangements. Co-operation/co-ordination with others.
Evidence
Individuals qualifications and experience. Source of advice. Workforce involvement.
Monitoring, audit and review. Welfare - H&S policy commitment, contracts with welfare facility providers.
Sub-Supplier consultation procedures. Sub-Supplier competency assessments. Hazard elimination and risk control.
Risk assessment procedural arrangements covering identification and control (sample risk assessments, safe
systems of work and method statements). Accident reporting, investigation and enforcement action.
PCF products: Pre-construction information, Construction Phase H&S plan, Form 10 Notification, H&S file and
Maintenance/Repair Strategy Statement. Other H&S legislation
Products and Supplier records.
Source of Data
H&S signed policy document and supporting detail.
considered
More than one key aspect is unsatisfactory to the extent that it calls into question the suppliers capability. The project
Totally
0 dissatisfied
manager should have written to the appropriate suppliers director and HA SRO to inform them of this concern which
should also be itemised in the scheme issues register.
required. This includes H&S audits undertaken 2 - 4 weeks late, serious issues reported requiring urgent corrective
Very
2 dissatisfied
action or past significant recommendations not resolved within an appropriate timescale. The project manager should
have escalated this concern in writing to the suppliers senior management and HA SRO. Detail should also be
recorded in the scheme issues register.
the project manager seeks improvement but these do not represent a risk of injury. This includes H&S audits
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
undertaken up to 2 weeks late, more significant issues reported requiring corrective action or past minor
recommendations not resolved within an appropriate timescale. This should be itemised in the scheme issues
register and recorded in the record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of H&S management & audit review, including welfare standards, are satisfactory. An overall H&S policy
and plan is produced and implemented for all personnel working on visiting or travelling through the area affected by
the scheme. This includes site survey work and meetings attended by members of the public. Plan is fully compliant
with CDM 2007 Appendix 4; Competence criteria 1 - 14, and in particular, Stage 1 Assessment, and all other relevant
legislation. Supplier can demonstrate competence training and regular H&S updates for themselves and their supply
chain. Robust arrangements are in place for identifying risks though risk assessments/audit and reviewing near
6 Satisfied misses, taking appropriate corrective action and implementing lessons learnt.
H&S routine audits planned across the whole supply chain and undertaken on time. Suppliers audit team is
appropriately trained/qualified and reporting lines demonstrate independence. Past audit recommendations have
been resolved within an appropriate timescale. Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered. Any best practise to
be shared with other schemes the supplier has with the HA.
All aspects are satisfactory and evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. Supplier can
demonstrate enhanced application of both CDM 2007 (Appendix 4; criteria 1-14) & welfare standards applied at all
levels, including their supply chain. Only minor issues reported requiring corrective action. Past audit
recommendations resolved within a timescale which reflects the importance of the issue reported. Supplier is
8 Highly satisfied proactive in identifying notable best practice and can evidence that (i) they have undertaken additional work above
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. Supplier is fully committed to job specific training, safe working
practices and the safety of the public. H&S failures are minor and resultant action is fully visible to HA. Supplier can
demonstrate active monitoring of their supply chain arrangements and intervention (where necessary). Scheme has
normally received an award from a recognised body for safety management. Structured H&S audits undertaken on
Exceptionally time across the Suppliers whole supply chain. Audit team is appropriately trained/qualified and reporting lines
10 satisfied demonstrate independence. All results are shared promptly with HA and no issues reported requiring corrective
action. Past audit recommendations resolved promptly in all cases. Supplier can evidence that any best practice
identified and accepted within the definition of the 8 scoring criteria (above) has been either (i) deployed on schemes
delivered by other suppliers or (ii) led to HA processes being changed and improved.

Purpose To minimise reportable accidents (RIDDORs)
Quality Standard
Accident Frequency Rate (AFR)
Evidence
Source of Data AIRS
RIDDOR target will be reduced year on year to reflect continuous improvement.
Results should be considered to verify scoring in Attachments 27, 28 & 29.
considered Can apply in the development phase if construction related activity such as advanced works and mobilisation is being
carried out.
Measure is the 12 months rolling AFR reported by HA via AIRS.
Data is recorded monthly on AIRS (or reasonable steps are being taken to do so) and rolling 12 months AFR > 0.30
Totally Alternatively, no action is being taken to record via AIRS. The project manager should have written to the appropriate
0 dissatisfied suppliers director and HA SRO to inform them of this concern which should also be itemised in the scheme issues
register.
Data is recorded monthly on AIRS (or reasonable steps are being taken to do so) and rolling 12 months
Very AFR 0.21 - 0.30 Alternatively, insufficient action is being taken to record via AIRS. The project manager should have
Data is recorded monthly on AIRS (or reasonable steps are being taken to do so) and rolling 12 months
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
AFR 0.11 - 0.20. Alternatively, there is an unacceptable delay in recording via AIRS. This concern should be itemised
in the scheme issues register and recorded in the record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of reportable incidents are satisfactory. Data is recorded monthly on AIRS (or reasonable steps are being
6 Satisfied
taken to do so) and rolling 12 months AFR equals 0.095 - 0.10
All aspects are satisfactory and there is evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. Data is recorded
8 Highly satisfied
monthly on AIRS (or reasonable steps are being taken to do so) and rolling 12 months AFR 0.001 - 0.094
Exceptionally All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. Data is recorded monthly on AIRS (or reasonable steps are being
10 satisfied taken to do so) and rolling 12 months AFR is NIL.

To ensure safety of road users and members of the public in connection with Temporary Traffic Management and
Purpose signing for Construction activity
Chapter 8 Traffic Signs Manual.
Details of inspections (planned and undertaken).
Risk assessments.
Quality Standard
Appropriateness of signs and equipment used.
Evidence
% signs highlighted as marginal and unacceptable.
Response time to replacing missing or damaged equipment.
Details of staff training.
Supplier records.
Source of Data Feedback received.
Incident reports.
considered
More than one key aspect is unsatisfactory to the extent that it calls into question the suppliers capability The project
Totally
0 dissatisfied
manager should have written to the appropriate suppliers director and HA SRO to inform them of this concern which
should also be itemised in the scheme issues register.
Very
2 dissatisfied
Slightly
4 dissatisfied
the project manager seeks improvement but these do not represent a risk of injury. This concern should be itemised
in the scheme issues register and recorded in the record of progress meeting minutes/action points.
5 satisfied or
dissatisfied
Manager.
All aspects of safety to the public are satisfactory. TTM fully in line with guidance contained in Chapter 8 Traffic Signs
Manual Part 1 Design and Part 2 Operations. Evidence of regular inspections from the road users perspective being
undertaken. Evidence log of inspections of speed limit signing and log of repairs, and replacements. No incidents
involving the public linked to displaced TTM. Risk assessments available for inspection and evidence provided that
these have been reviewed and modified, if necessary, as a result of any "local issues that have been identified by
personnel involved in the works or comments received from the HA, police or members of the public. Sign size
complies with Chapter 8 or legal minimum if justified by written risk assessment. No more than 10% of signs
highlighted as marginal and no signs listed as unacceptable as per A4 Appendix in Chapter 8 Part 2
6 Satisfied
Operations. All missing or damaged equipment replaced within 24 hours. Staff with appropriate sector scheme
training. TSCO appointed with name/contact details readily available.
TTM is a standing agenda item at all review/progress meetings any issues identified resolved within 24 hours.
Sequential flashing road danger lamps used on leading tapers (but not on cross over/changeovers). Diagram 7290
(speed limit 3/4 mile ahead) signs not used. Agreed tender undertakings are being delivered. Any best practise to be
shared with other schemes the supplier has with the HA.
All aspects are satisfactory and there is evidence that some aspects are exceeding HA expectation. There have been
no incidents linked to the TTM layout within the reporting period. No more than 5% of signs are highlighted as
marginal and no signs are listed as unacceptable as per A4 Appendix in Chapter 8 Part 2 Operations. All
missing or damaged equipment has been replaced within 12 hours. Supplier is proactive in identifying notable
8 Highly satisfied best practice and can evidence that (i) they have undertaken additional work above their work package specification
(not initiated or requested by the HA) which provides a benefit to the scheme/HA, and (ii) the details of this work have
work.
All aspects exceed HA expectation considerably. There have been no incidents linked to the TTM layout within the
reporting period. No signs are highlighted as marginal and no signs are listed as unacceptable as per A4 Appendix
Exceptionally in Chapter 8 Part 2 Operations. All missing or damaged equipment has been replaced immediately. Supplier can
10 satisfied evidence that any best practice identified and accepted within the definition of the 8 scoring criteria (above) has been
either (i) deployed on schemes delivered by other suppliers or (ii) led to HA processes being changed and improved.
Quantitative Evidenced Contractor Performance Indicators, (v6.0)
360 FEEDBACK - ATTACHMENT 32

Purpose To provide honest and balanced feedback to HA as a Client
Evidence that HA is fulfilling effectively its Client responsibilities.
Clarity of Task Order brief.
Responsiveness to requests for clarification and problem solving (speed and clarity).
Quality Standard Behaviour.
Evidence Change management.
Interaction with DfT.
Cross directorate team working.
Clarity of communication.
This feedback is for the Agency as a whole. This includes interaction with all relevant directorates and DfT. It is
important that scores below 6 are supported by relevant evidence in order that HA can identify common areas
Other Information to
be considered requiring intervention and take the appropriate corrective action.

Sub Indicator: considerations
Main Indicator: HA: Evidence to consider:
Behaviour/capability/attitude
Provides clarity Clarity of requirements and Time, cost, quality, expectations, scope, behaviour, capability,
expectations, including business case milestones, success criteria, KPI determination and measurement.
objectives.
Clarity of contractual relationship, Risk/reward, PCF, ICF, stage gate/gateway reviews and other relevant
governance, process and procedures. information/processes made clear.
HA communicates effectively. Timing, relevance, clarity and consistency.
Delivers value Contract and process enables supply Environment (process and application) encourages optimum delivery of
chain partners to be effective, both schemes and programme.
individually and collectively.
All opportunities are taken to identify Best practice is identified, evaluated appropriately based on evidence
best practice and deployed it across the and deployed in a timely manner across the programme.
programme.
Problems are solved quickly and Issues/trends identified early and problem solving techniques and
effectively. expertise applied to overcome them quickly.
Is an effective partner HA demonstrates effective partnering Adaptability, timely action, close working relationships, and client
capability. responsibilities.
Internal and external stakeholders are Proactive relationship management with DfT, HA cross directorate
engaged effectively. working and external stakeholders.
Appropriate resource and expertise is HA mobilises timely and appropriate resource commensurate with
available. required expertise.
Displays integrity HA behaviour. Professionalism, fairness, demonstrating HA values, and can do
Risk is managed fairly. attitude.
Risk split between Supplier & HA.
Treatment of CEs/SREs.
HA pays correctly and on time. HA pays correctly and on time. Meets requirements for main supplier
and facilitates prompt and correct payment across the wider supply
chain. Score should be based on the number of working days it took
from receiving an agreed certificate or invoice to payment being made.
<4 days = 10, 5 to 6 days = 8, 7-10 days = 6, 11 to 14 days = 4, 15 to 19
days = 2 and 20> days = 0.
Calculations schemes to be protected Jun-13 0 Month - year (reporting period from) -
current setting 0 v6.0
scheme
month year
type
phase scores Cals for working out summary scores
January 2011 Conventional Development 0 1 Product Conventional Managed Motorway
February 2012 Managed Motor Construction 2 Development
March 2013 4 Construction
April 2014 5
May 2015 6 2 Service Conventional Managed Motorway
June 2016 8 DevelopmentConv-Devel MM-Const
July 10 Construction
August na
September 3 RFT Conventional Managed Motorway
October DevelopmentConv-Devel
November Construction
December
4 Cost Conventional Managed Motorway
DevelopmentConv-Devel
Construction
5 Time Conventional Managed Motorway

Construction
6 H&S Conventional Managed Motorway

Construction
360 Conventional Managed Motorway

Development
Construction
Quantitative Evidenced Contractor Performance Indicators v6.0
Scheme Name Scheme Type
Package (if applicable) Phase
Supplier Month - year
1. PRODUCT View
Owner
Attachment
Measure Capability /behaviour measured No. Description (0 - 10)
To provide input to a scheme design which

All Input to the design of the fully integrated scheme. 1.1
satisfies HA requirements 1
Construction To construct a scheme which satisfies HA

only
Deliver the fully integrated scheme. 1.2
requirements in Construction 2
Overall Score
2. SERVICE View
Owner
Attachment
2.1 To maintain effective engagement,
communication and collaboration with the Project
All Manager, Integrated Project Team and/or the HUB 3
All communication and collaboration with NDD,
NetServ and other HA directorates
4
Maintain effective stakeholder engagement, 2.3 To maintain effective engagement,
All communication, and collaboration. communication and collaboration with the
Contractors supply chain - tier 2 and tier 3
5
2.4 To maintain fair payments to the Suppliers supply
All chain - tier 2 and tier 3 6
All communication and collaboration with external
stakeholders
7
2.6 To manage sustainability and inclusion effectively
Development
only
in Development 8
2.7 To manage sustainability and inclusion effectively
Construction
only
in Construction 9
2.8 To manage risk and opportunities effectively
All Manage risk. 10
2.9 To manage the On Time Reliability Measure
All Manage The Reliability Measure through construction. within the constraints agreed with NDD or the
Project Manager
11
2.10 To demonstrate improvements to time, cost and
health & safety through innovation
All Facilitate continuous improvement through innovation. 12
Overall Score
3. RIGHT FIRST TIME View
Owner
Attachment
3.1 To deploy and manage quality processes and
All Manage effective quality processes and controls. demonstrate effectiveness of quality processes
through independent audit
13
3.2 To ensure that key information and actions do not
All require avoidable rework 15
3.3 To minimise and manage Non-Conformance
Construction
only Deliver RFT. Reports (NCRs) and defects for Construction
activity
16
3.4 To measure the effectiveness of resource
Construction
only
management for Construction activity 17
Overall Score
4. COST View
Owner
Attachment
Development 4.1 To complete the phase within the Development
and
Conventional
Phase Budget (not applicable to MM schemes) 18
only
4.2 To complete the phase within the Construction
Construction
only
Deliver within cost. Phase Budget 19
4.3 To achieve the Cost Performance Index (CPI)
All target for the Development and Construction
phases
20
4.4 To forecast reliably for the current financial year
All Forecast current financial year spend accurately. 21
4.5 To ensure that Compensation Events are priced
Construction
only Estimate change events accurately. accurately in Construction 22
Overall Score
5. TIME View
Owner
Attachment
Developme 5.1 To complete the Development phase within the
nt and
Convention
agreed timescale (not applicable to MM schemes) 23
al only
5.2 To complete the Construction phase within the
Constructio
n only Deliver within time. agreed timescale. 24
5.3 To achieve the Schedule Performance Index (SPI)
All target for the Development and Construction
phases.
25
5.4 To ensure timely response to key information and
All Provide timely information. action required by HA and other relevant
stakeholders within the period.
26
Overall Score
6. HEALTH & SAFETY View
Owner
Attachment
6.1 To manage Health and Safety processes in Development
Development
only
and confirm effectiveness of Health & Safety
management through independent audit
27
6.2 To manage health and safety processes for Construction
Construction
only
activity and confirm effectiveness of Health & Safety
management through independent audit
28
6.3 To minimise reportable accidents (RIDDORs)
Construction
only 30
6.4 To ensure safety of road users and members of the public
Construction
only
Manage safety of the public and road users. in connection with Temporary Traffic Management and 31
signing for Construction activity
Overall Score
360 FEEDBACK View
Main Indicator: Sub Indicator: considerations Attachment
Measure HA: Behaviour/capability/attitude
Evidence to consider: (0 - 10)
Clarity of requirements and Time, cost, quality, expectations, scope, behaviour,

All expectations, including business case 360.1 capability, milestones, success criteria, KPI determination
and measurement.
32
objectives.
Risk/reward, PCF, ICF, stage gate/gateway reviews and
Clarity of contractual relationship,
All Provides clarity
governance, process and procedures.
360.2 other relevant information/processes made clear. 32
All HA communicates effectively. 360.3 32
Contract and process enables supply Environment (process and application) encourages
All chain partners to be effective, both 360.4 optimum delivery of schemes and programme. 32
individually and collectively.
All opportunities are taken to identify Best practice is identified, evaluated appropriately based on
All Delivers value best practice and deployed it across 360.5 evidence and deployed in a timely manner across the
programme.
32
the programme.
Issues/trends identified early and problem solving
Problems are solved quickly and
All
effectively.
360.6 techniques and expertise applied to overcome them quickly. 32
Adaptability, timely action, close working relationships, and
HA demonstrates effective partnering
All
capability.
360.7 client responsibilities. 32
Proactive relationship management with DfT, HA cross
Is an effective Internal and external stakeholders are
All partner engaged effectively.
360.8 directorate working and external stakeholders. 32
HA mobilises timely and appropriate resource
Appropriate resource and expertise is
All
available.
360.9 commensurate with required expertise. 32
Professionalism, fairness, demonstrating HA values, and
All HA behaviour. 360.10 can do attitude. 32
All Displays integrity Risk is managed fairly. 360.11 Treatment of CEs. 32
Meets requirements for main Contractor and facilitates
All HA pays correctly and on time. 360.12 prompt/correct payment across the wider supply chain. 32
Overall Score
Scheme Name Scheme Type v6.0
Measure Category Capability /behaviour measured No. Description (0 - 10)
1.1 To provide input to a scheme design which satisfies HA requirements (see attachment 1)
All Product Input to the design of the fully integrated scheme.
1.2 To construct a scheme which satisfies HA requirements for Construction activity (see attachment
Construction only Product Deliver the fully integrated scheme.
2)
PRODUCT Overall Score
2.1 To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with the Project Manager,
All Service
Integrated Project Team and/or the HUB (see attachment 3)
All Service
other HA directorates (see attachment 4)
Maintain effective stakeholder engagement, 2.3 To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with the Contractors supply
All Service
communication, and collaboration. chain - tier 2 and tier 3 (see attachment 5)
All Service
2.5 To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with external stakeholders
All Service
(see attachment 7)
Development only Service
Development
Construction
All Service Manage risk.
All Service Manage The Reliability Measure through construction.
Project Manager (see attachment 11)
All Service Facilitate continuous improvement through innovation.
attachment 12)
SERVICE Overall Score
3.1 To deploy and manage quality processes and demonstrate effectiveness of quality processes
All RFT Manage effective quality processes and controls.
3.2 To ensure that key information and actions do not require avoidable rework (see attachment 14)
All RFT
Construction only RFT Deliver RFT.
3.4 To measure the effectiveness of resource management for Construction activity (see attachment
16)
RFT Overall Score
Development and 4.1 To complete the phase within the Development Phase Budget (not applicable to MM schemes)
Cost
Conventional only (see attachment 17)
4.2 To complete the phase within the Construction Phase Budget (see attachment 18)
Construction only Cost Deliver within cost.
All Cost
4.4 To forecast reliably for the current financial year (see attachment 20)
All Cost Forecast current financial year spend accurately.
4.5 To ensure that Compensation Events/Strategic Risk Events are priced accurately (see attachment
All Cost Estimate change events accurately.
21)
COST
Development and 5.1 To complete the Development phase within the agreed timescale (not applicable to MM
Time
Conventional only schemes) (see attachment 22)
5.2 To complete the Construction phase within the agreed timescale (see attachment 23)
Construction only Time Deliver within time.
5.3 To achieve the Schedule Performance Index (SPI) target for the Development and Construction
All Time
phases (see attachment 24)
5.4 To ensure timely response to key information and action required by HA and other relevant
All Time Provide timely information.
TIME Overall Score
6.1 To manage Health and Safety processes in Development and confirm effectiveness of Health &
Safety management through independent audit (see attachment 26)
Health & Safety management through independent audit (see attachment 27)
6.3 To minimise reportable accidents (RIDDORs) ( see attachment 28)
Manage safety of the public, workers and road users.
6.4 To ensure safety of road users and members of the public in connection with Temporary Traffic
Management and signing for Construction activity (see attachment 29)
H&S Overall Score
ALL (excludes 360) Overall Scheme Score
Time, cost, quality, expectations, scope, behaviour, capability, milestones, success criteria, KPI
All 360 360.1 determination and measurement.
All 360 Provides clarity 360.2 made clear.

All 360 360.3

Best practice is identified, evaluated appropriately based on evidence and deployed in a timely
All 360 Delivers value 360.5 manner across the programme.
Issues/trends identified early and problem solving techniques and expertise applied to overcome
All 360 360.6 them quickly.

All 360 360.7
All 360 Is an effective partner 360.8 stakeholders.

All 360 360.9

All 360 360.10

All 360 Displays integrity 360.11 Treatment of CE's
Meets requirements for main Contractor and facilitates prompt/correct payment across the wider
All 360 360.12 supply chain.
360 Overall Score

Scheme Type
Phase
Month - year
Measure Category No. Description Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14
All Product 1.1 To provide input to a scheme design which satisfies HA requirements (see attachment 1)
Construction only Product 1.2 To construct a scheme which satisfies HA requirements in Construction (see attachment 2)
PRODUCT Overall Score

2.1 To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with the Project
All Service Manager, Integrated Project Team and/or the HUB (see attachment 3)
All Service other HA directorates (see attachment 4)
2.3 To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with the Contractors
All Service supply chain - tier 2 and tier 3 (see attachment 5)
All Service
2.5 To maintain effective engagement, communication and collaboration with external

All Service stakeholders (see attachment 7)
Development only Service Development
Construction
All Service
All Service Project Manager (see attachment 11)
All Service attachment 12)
SERVICE Overall Score
3.1
To deploy and manage quality processes and demonstrate effectiveness of quality processes
All RFT
3.2 To ensure that key information and actions do not require avoidable rework (see attachment
All RFT
14)
3.4 To measure the effectiveness of resource management for Construction activity (see
attachment 16)
RFT Overall Score
Development and Conventional 4.1 To complete the phase within the Development Phase Budget (not applicable to MM
Cost schemes) (see attachment 17)
only
4.2
Construction only Cost To complete the phase within the Construction Phase Budget (see attachment 18)
All Cost
4.4
All Cost To forecast reliably for the current financial year (see attachment 20)
4.5 To ensure that Compensation Events are priced accurately in Construction (see attachment
Construction only Cost
21)
COST Overall Score
Development and Conventional 5.1 To complete the Development phase within the agreed timescale (not applicable to MM
Time schemes) (see attachment 22)
only
5.2
Construction only Time To complete the Construction phase within the agreed timescale (see attachment 23)
5.3 To achieve the Schedule Performance Index (SPI) target for the Development and
All Time
Construction phases (see attachment 24)
5.4
To ensure timely response to key information and action required by HA and other relevant
All Time
TIME Overall Score

6.1 To manage Health and Safety processes in Development and confirm effectiveness of Health
& Safety management through independent audit (see attachment 26)
Health & Safety management through independent audit (see attachment 27)
6.3
Construction only H&S To minimise reportable accidents (RIDDORs) in Construction ( see attachment 28)
6.4
To ensure safety of road users and members of the public in connection with Temporary
Traffic Management and signing for Construction activity (see attachment 29)
H&S Overall Score

ALL (excludes 360) Overall Scheme Score (excludes 360)
Time, cost, quality, expectations, scope, behaviour, capability, milestones, success criteria,
All 360 360.1 KPI determination and measurement.
All 360 360.2 made clear.
All 360 360.3

Best practice is identified, evaluated appropriately based on evidence and deployed in a
All 360 360.5 timely manner across the programme.
Issues/trends identified early and problem solving techniques and expertise applied to
All 360 360.6 overcome them quickly.
All 360 360.7
All 360 360.8 stakeholders.
All 360 360.9

All 360 360.10

All 360 360.11 Treatment of CEs.
Meets requirements for main Contractor and facilitates prompt/correct payment across the
All 360 360.12 wider supply chain.
360 Overall Score
10.0
Overall Scheme Score (excludes 360) 10.0 360 Feedback
9.0 9.0
8.0 8.0
7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0
5.0 5.0
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14
PRODUCT 10.0 COST

10.0
9.0 9.0
8.0 8.0
7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0
5.0 5.0
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 A ug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14
10.0 SERVICE 10.0 TIM E
9.0 9.0
8.0 8.0
7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0
5.0 5.0
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 A pr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14
10.0
RFT 10.0 H&S
9.0 9.0
8.0 8.0
7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0
5.0 5.0
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14
Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14
PRODUCT
SERVICE
RFT
COST
TIME
H&S
Overall Scheme Score (exc
360 Feedback
Email to ; commercialintelligence@highways.gsi.gov.uk

Version Control
Owner Commercial Intelligence
Version 6
Date 01 June 2013
Revisions
Date Version NOTES
April 2009 v 2.00 Release of updated MST
Table No.6.3 (attachment 27) updated to reflect new AFR target for 2010 and reporting
05 May 2010 v 2.01
on AIRS
01 April 2010 v 3.0 v3 issued for Managed Motorways Only
v 4.00 Major update of measures and incorporating the Managed Motorways Contracts
01 April 2011
01 April 2012 v 5.00 Annual Update

01 April 2013 v 6.00 Annual Update
01 June 2013 v 6.00 Annual Update
v6.0 GLOSSARY
AFR Accident Frequency Rate
AIP Approval In Principle
AIR Accident Incident Rate
AIRS Accident Incident Reporting System
AST Appraisal Summary Table
BS Business Services
CCS Considerate Constructors Scheme
CDM Construction Design and Management
CE Compensation Event
CEEQUAL Civil Engineering Environmental Quality
CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan
CITB Council and Industry Training Board
Conventional Schemes other then Managed Motorways
CPI Cost Performance Index
CRaMS Commercial Reporting and Monitoring System
DfT Department for Transport
DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
DP Delivery Partner
EV Earned Value
EVM Earned Value Management
EW Early Warning
FS Finance Services
HA Highways Agency
HAIL Highways Agency Information Line
NEBOSH National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health
HIB Highways Investment Board
H&S Health and Safety
HSE Health and Safety Executive
ICF Investment Control Framework
IPT Integrated Project Team
JTR Journey Time Reliability
KPI Key Performance Indicator
MM Managed Motorway
MMDO Managed Motorways Delivery Office
MP Major Projects
MST Motivating Success Toolkit
NetServ Network Services
NCR Non-Conformance Report
NDD Network Delivery and Development
OGC Office of Government Commerce
PCF Project Control Framework
PDO Programme Delivery Office
PI Public Inquiry
QMS Quality Management System
RFT Right First Time
RIDDOR Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and dangerous Occurrences Regulations
SfM System for Managing
SHARE Sharing Highways Agency Records Electronically
SPI Schedule Performance Index
SRO Senior Responsible Owner
TMD Traffic Management Directorate
TSCO Traffic and Safety Control Officers
TTM Temporary Traffic Management
WRAP Waste and Resources Action Programme

MST Contractor v6

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

MST Contractor v6

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Motivating Success Toolkit

A Toolkit for Performance Measurement

Reporting Pro - Forma

MST Guidance Notes

Email completed MST to commercialintelligence@highways.gsi.gov.uk

File naming structure

Scheme 123 MST v6 Const 2013 04

Using this MST

Using this workbook

Enter score by Enter evidence to

Scheme Type and

Product measure 1.2

MST supplier scores history

MST supplier graphs

All measures are applicable except where indicated by "na".

Motivating Success Toolkit

Timing, relevance, clarity and consistency.

Environment (process and application) encourages optimum delivery of schemes and

Adaptability, timely action, close working relationships, and client responsibilities.

HA mobilises timely and appropriate resource commensurate with required expertise.

Professionalism, fairness, demonstrating HA values, and can do attitude.

Risk split between Contractor & HA.

Scheme Details Sheet

Supplier Project Manager

Package name if applicable

Month - year (reporting period from)

Month - year (reporting period to)

Approx. Tender Value

Award / Order Date

Commercial Performance Manager

No.1.2 - PRODUCT - ATTACHMENT 2

No.2.1 - SERVICE - ATTACHMENT 3

No.2.2 - SERVICE - ATTACHMENT 4

No.2.3 - SERVICE - ATTACHMENT 5

No.2.4 - SERVICE - ATTACHMENT 6

No.2.5 - SERVICE - ATTACHMENT 7

No.2.6 - SERVICE - ATTACHMENT 8

No.2.8 - SERVICE - ATTACHMENT 10

No.2.9 - SERVICE - ATTACHMENT 11

This measure reflects performance since the last MST score.

No.2.10 - SERVICE - ATTACHMENT 12

No.3.1 - RFT - ATTACHMENT 13

No.3.2 - RFT - ATTACHMENT 14

No.3.3 - RFT - ATTACHMENT 15

No.3.4 - RFT - ATTACHMENT 16

No.4.1 - COST - ATTACHMENT 17

No.4.2 - COST - ATTACHMENT 18

No.4.3 - COST - ATTACHMENT 19

No.4.4 - COST - ATTACHMENT 20

No.4.5 - COST - ATTACHMENT 21

No.5.1 - TIME - ATTACHMENT 22

Planned = Development Phase duration agreed with PM

No.5.2 - TIME - ATTACHMENT 23

Planned = Construction Phase duration agreed with PM

No.5.3 - TIME - ATTACHMENT 24

No.5.4 - TIME - ATTACHMENT 25

No.6.3 - H&S - ATTACHMENT 28

No.6.4 - H&S - ATTACHMENT 29

360 FEEDBACK - ATTACHMENT 32

This measure reflects performance since the last MST score.

5 Time Conventional Managed Motorway

6 H&S Conventional Managed Motorway

360 Conventional Managed Motorway