Budget Year Minus 1 - Validate Bid


	Defence Estate Quality Management System (DEQMS) - IM

Site Navigation :: Home>Estate Maintenance>5.10 Validate Bid

Over the last few years there have been ongoing problems with inaccurate categorisation and risk assessment of works bids. Allocation of finite funds to the highest risks in the estate relies on consistent and compliant coding of the bid in DEMS and application of the guidance for conduct of the risk assessments.

Non-compliant bids risk removal from the bid altogether. There has been a consistent history over the last few years of CSIR’s being removed from the bid due to non-compliance with the risk assessment guidance in particular.

IA Maintenance Plans form the basis for bidding Maintenance type works through the Estate Maintenance program.

Outcome:
All bids for both Maintenance and Minor New works are to be reviewed for their compliance with the guidance for coding of project bids in DEMS and the conduct of the risk assessments.

Approved IA Maintenance Plans are to be submitted to Estate Operations, prior to the RFC each year, for review by the NFCF/DEC Representatives and other stakeholders.

Activity

1) Estate Development / Estate Support Officers check that the CSIR details the requirement in terms of the impact that the current problem is having.

2) The risk assessment is to detail the link between the problem being experienced (as detailed in the CSIR) and the guidance for each of the consequence and likelihood ratings in the risk assessment guidance. Reviewers of the CSIR need to be able to understand the link between the problem to be solved and the risk associated with not solving it.

3) NOT ASSESSED is a valid assessment for purposes of CSIR authorisation. Some areas of risk assessment may require consultation that take some time to obtain, as a result a risk assessment dimension can be left unassessed, but authorised to enable the project to be included in DEMS. Each risk assessment starts off as NOT ASSESSED which is the lowest priority (Negligible Consequence and Rare Likelihood).

4) There is no weighting assigned to the criteria. Whilst capability might be typically perceived as more important, in the context of this process, it is the same as all the others. This explains why a Cadet kitchen upgrade, which is sensitive to the Reputation criteria, may get a higher risk score than the provision of a shelter to protect communications equipment.

5) The highest risk level (Low, Medium, High or Very High) for any one of the seven criteria produces the overall risk band for the assessment. For example, a high for Financial Efficiency but low for all the other criteria will result in an overall assessment is the High risk band. Therefore, efforts should directed towards substantiating the true high risks. Massaging of all the other criteria into the high category merely discredits the overall bid and risks it being not supported through the review process.

6) Extensive guidance is provided against each criterion as to what constitutes a particular consequence and its likelihood. This guidance is complex but must be used to justify the consequence and likelihood score given by linking it to the circumstances of the problem to be solved. Authors must be satisfied that the word picture clearly supports the ratings given and does not merely repeat the rating descriptor as stated in the guidance.

7) Common areas of over-statement of risk and understatement of the justification are:

Capability: Very High and High
The facilities firstly needs to be CF1,2 or 3 and must be total or almost total incapable of providing the function required and there are no mitigation strategies in place.

OH&S Very High and High
Assessments at this level should almost never be offered. It means that there is a prediction of a fatality or major hospitalisation event if the works are not done. The risk assessment is to be made on the mitigated state. That mitigated state may have an effect on capability or financial efficiency, but in most circumstances mitigation actions are put in place to prevent fatalities and major hospitalisations.

Legislative Compliance Very High and High
There are only very limited circumstances where Defence faces large scale breaches and fines. Predictions of this occurring should be back by some degree of legal advice.

Reputation
A common mistake is to include staff and/or unit morale in the reputation assessment. Reputation is to consider the effect on Defence’s reputation with the external community, media and government.

DEMS Coding Compliance

Activity

1) Only those projects where Submit For Bid checkbox is set to “Yes” or the Estate Maintenance Program checkbox is set to “Yes” are included in the bid. The latter case being for projects that are already approved.

2) A project is only ever approved once. An ongoing requirement for a Risk Managed Works projects that is already approved is to be bid using a new DEMS Project id. Extensions to existing Risk Managed Works projects will not be approved.

Project Type

3) Project Type code in DEMS determines which funding category the bid is to be approved from. DS staff should check that the appropriate Project Type is used. For projects where there is mixture of activities across the funding categories, Project Type should be determined by the majority spend for that particular project.

4) Minor New Works bids are limited to $500,000. Bids that are inappropriately squeezed in under the $500,000 threshold are obvious and should be re-directed to the Capital Works bidding process, where a potentially more fulsome solution may be available.

DEMS Project Instructions

Bid Data Validation Report

5) A new report in DEMS called “Bid Data Validation” runs a number of tests to highlight common and obvious data integrity issues in the project records for the upcoming bid. Projects with the following conditions are highlighted in this report. Projects with these conditions will be highlighted;

$0 bid amount
Blank Estate Type on projects with Product Type = Risk Managed Works RMW
No Property id in FY Allocation lines.
Product Type=RMW and a risk assessment of N 210
Project Type = Minor New Works and no CAPITAL cost element bid amounts.
NPOC Impact = No or Null and a non-zero CAPITAL cost element bid amount.
FACOPS Checkbox = Yes and $0 Allocation amount.
FACOPS Checkbox ≠ Yes and with fin allocation status ≠ Planned

Project Type Codes and Funding Categories

Project Type	Funding Category
Work Planning Fees	Work Planning Fees
Asbestos	Asbestos
Demolition Works	Demolition
Environmental Management	Maintenance
Energy & Water Efficiency	Minor New Works
FP&E Replacement	Maintenance
Heritage Management	Maintenance
Maintenance Works	Maintenance
Minor New Works	Minor New Works
Non Single LEAP LIA	Maintenance
Devolved Unfunded	Devolved works are not included in the Estate Maintenance bid process.
Devolved Funded
DMO Devolved Works

Supporting Evidence – Maintenance Works

Activity

Submission of IA Maintenance Plans

1) Regions are to be submit their approved 5 Year IA Maintenance Plans to Directorate of Estate Operations, prior to their RFC’s each year, for review by the NFCF/DEC Representatives and other stakeholders.

2) This review will allow any changes/amendments to be made to the Plans and CSIR’s prior to Bid submission. Changes to plans may require re-approval of regional signatories and re-submission to EFPO.

Submit IA Maintenance Plans
View submitted IA Maintenance Plans

Regional Summary of IA Maintenance Plans

3) A Bid Summary is to be prepared that shows the total maintenance bids for each base by year and compares them to the 3 year forward funding guidance provided by Estate Operations. It is to be summarised on the Bid Summary tab on the 3 Year Programming Tool

4) The totals for the region cannot exceed the total 3 year forward funding guidance for the region. A description of property level variance from the provided funding guidance is to be provided reflecting the regional priorities given in the base IA maintenance plan.

5)The Bid Summary is to be submitted with the regional bid.

top