National Improvement and Efficiency
 Partnership (NIEP) for the Built Environment

 Held on           15 March 2012
 At                One Great George Street, London

 Present:          Andrew Smith, Chair
                   Mark Robinson, Scape System Build for East Midlands Property Alliance
                   Peter McDermott, CCI & Salford University
                   Patrick Blogg, Senior Programme Manager, IESE
                   Bob White, CEO Constructing Futures
                   David Corcoran, Strategic Manager, IESE
                   John Ioannou, Economic Reform Group, Cabinet Office
                   Paul Meigh, Economic Reform Group, Cabinet Office
                   Nigel Leighton, Yorkshire and Humber IEP
                   Michael Lee, NIEP Programme Manager, Hampshire County Council (ML)
                   Peter Geall, Head of Construction, Smarte East
                   Keith Gordon, Asst Director Procurement & Efficiency I&E West Midlands
                   Wendy Pidduck, Hampshire County Council
                   Jon Williams, Framework Manager, Construction Framework South West
                   Matthew Lugg, Leicestershire County Council (MLg)
                   Justin Bennett, Devon CC
                   Nick Dexter, DCLG
                   Michael Wood, Haringey Council

 Apologies:        John Lorimer, Capital Programme Director, Manchester City Council
                   Martin Forbes, Programme Manager Asset Management, I&E West Midlands
                   Haydn Davies, Department for Transport
                   John Connell, DCLG
                   Pamela Holmes, North East Procurement Organisation
                   Adrian Rowlands, Birmingham City Council
                   Kevin Kendall, Walsall
                   Alan Coole, Scape
                   Michael Wood, Haringey

 Action Notes:

No          Note                                                                       Action
1.0         Notes of meeting held on 8 November 2011 and matters arising

1.1         The notes were agreed subject to 5.3.1 where the reference should have
            been HTMA and not HTEM. There were no matters arising not included
            on the agenda.

2.0         NIEP and Local Productivity Programme

2.1         AJS confirmed that he was liaising with a number of key Chief Executives
            on the National Procurement Strategy. Deloitte had agreed to produced      AJS/ML
            a business plan and Spikes Cavell were providing some of the data. It
            was anticipated that a framework would be available in the next two

                                                Page 1 of 4
No    Note                                                                         Action
3.0   Response to James Review

3.1   AJS updated the Board on the James Review indicating the following:

            Local government has been kept within the delivery arena, and
             councils will be able to contract, design and deliver capital
             schools programmes but will have to use fit-for-purpose
             framework arrangements
            DfE to build a central team capable of contracting to deliver Free
             Schools. (Rachel Stephenson to contact Keith Heard and John
             Lorimer)                                                              KH/JL
            The next tranche of PFI will be excluded from the arrangements
             and be managed centrally by the DfE
            Local authorities have been given 3 years to deliver projects –
             important that this is done well
            Important that the NIEP in the next 12 months facilitates an
             improvement in framework contracts and reduces the number
             nationally to between 5 and 8.
            School Building Regulations to be abolished
            A series of ‘blueprints’ are being produced which will dictate what
             should be included within a school building
            Pilots to be identified to use the ‘blueprints’.
            A debate is required on how local government works with the DfE

3.2   ML made reference to the presentation that was made to the
      Commission of Inquiry into achieving best value in the procurement of
      construction on Monday 12 March. The APPG was receiving a number
      of presentations/submissions from which a report will be drafted for the
      Cabinet Office.

4.0   Capital and Assets Pathfinder Update

4.1   PB updated the Board confirming that the second wave of pathfinders
      had been identified. There are 15 areas (rather than the specific local
      authorities which formed the first wave). The 15 areas were now working
      on 10 year implementation plans which are due to be submitted shortly.

4.2   PB also confirmed that Baroness Hanham was very involved and she
      had met all the areas in the second wave. A further ministerial meeting      PB
      was due to be held on 27 March.

4.3   It was noted that wave 2 was being managed by the LGA (Steve Jacobs
      was the key contact) working with the DCLG. The focus for wave 2 is
      around deficit reduction, economic growth and development as well as
      asset rationalisation.

4.4   ND made reference to mixed messages around highways and
      information required for the Cabinet Office on procurement pipelines.
      MLg clarified the position and the need to ensure any information            MLg
      provided is accurate and agreed by all local authorities. MLg agreed to
      follow up and ensure the information is provided to the Cabinet Office.

5.0   Workstream Highlight reports

5.1   Procurement & Skills

                                            Page 2 of 4
No      Note                                                                          Action
5.1.1   DC updated the Board confirming the good progress in waves 1 and 2.
        DC indicated that the BIM strategy was key and that the next stage of the     DC
        workstream was to consider how to collaborate more closely.

5.2     Effectiveness of frameworks

5.2.1   PMc presented the Effectiveness of Frameworks report which had been
        produced for the Government Construction Board. There was
        unanimous agreement on the excellence of the report and PMc and KH
        were thanked for their contribution.

5.2.2   MLg indicated that it would be very helpful to include reference to
        highways as there are some good case studies. It was agreed to link           MLg/PMc
        with local authorities highways sector.

5.2.3   It was noted that the document was to be shared with the DfE. It was
        also agreed that SMEs should be given an opportunity to provide a view
        on the document before publishing the report in the wider community.

5.3     Asset Management

5.3.1   PB requested Board members to review the Community of Practice and
        provide any comments direct to PB. See also section 4 for update on           All/PB
        Capital and Asset Pathfinders.

5.4     Client Leadership – see section 7

5.5     Highways

5.5.1   MLg updated the Board on the development of the HMEP vision and the
        efficiency solutions that were due to be released in the future. MLg
        highlighted the work that is being completed on the collaborative
        highways alliance toolkit emphasising that he did not want to duplicate
        effort as he recognised that there could be some ‘crossover’ with other
        construction areas.

6.0     Government Construction Strategy – new models for piloting

6.1     KH presented the report and gave an overview of the three construction
        framework models for piloting. It was noted that models 1 and 2 needed
        to be trialled as model 3 was already being used.

6.2     There was concern with option 2 – the Integrated Project Insurance
        model as it could add costs to the project as individual companies will
        have to insure for the other work they are involved in. KH confirmed that
        a pilot project with a value of between £10m and £20m was being sought.

6.3     There was a general discussion around BIM and concerns with
        consistency/timing of ‘data drops’ and the need for a three dimensional
        tool to deliver the ‘data drops’. It was agreed that further thought needed
        to given to BIM and it was noted that John Lorimer had agreed to trial the    JL
        process and report back to NIEP. It was also agreed that BIM would be
        trialled on a school project in Hampshire. It was also suggested that in      DC/KH
        order to promote BIM regional BIM hubs be set up in the 9 regional areas
        with CIC hosting and collating the information within the regions.

                                              Page 3 of 4
No        Note                                                                           Action
6.4       It was agreed to keep BIM on the NIEP agenda.                                  ML/WP

7.0       Client Leadership Guide

7.1       BW referred to the Guide circulated with the papers and confirmed that a
          hard copy would be available once finalised. BW requested comments
          on the content and whether or not the Guide was balanced correctly. It
          was agreed to circulate a link to the full document with the minutes which
          included practical case studies. Board Members to check that the case          BW/WP/All
          studies are relevant to their respective areas.

7.2       It was agreed to raise the profile of the document to ensure that it is used
          and encourage local authorities to be ‘inspiring clients’. PB agreed to        PB
          make reference to the document at the next meeting of the Capital and
          Asset Pathfinders. It was also agreed to present the document to the           BW
          Private Sector Forum.

7.3       It was noted that the FM Guide was now available on the NIEP website.

8.0       Marketing and adoption

8.1       ML presented his report and indicated that a positive effort should be
          made to promoting and securing adoption of the initiatives of the NIEP
          emphasising the importance of all parts of the sector playing their part.
          ML also emphasised that the NIEP should avoid any perception of
          becoming a talking shop, but the Board should play an active part in
          promoting what can be achieved.

8.2       Board members were asked to contact ML by email with any                       All/ML
          comments/suggestions. ML to circulate suggestions.

8.3       It was noted that the UK Contractors group had asked if they could host
          an event at the LG Conference in June. AJS confirmed that he was
          working with a number of Chief Executives who could help to promote the AJS/ML
          NIEP. It was also noted that there was Construction Summit on the 2
          July being run by central government which might be an appropriate
          forum to promote the NIEP.

9.0       AOB

9.1       KG to report to the next NIEP meeting on low carbon issues/opportunities       KG

9.2       AJS thanked the Board for the good progress that has been made on a
          number of fronts.

 Date of next meeting: 14 June 2012 in Birmingham

                                                 Page 4 of 4

To top