Performance
Key performance indicators show that over the last twelve years of ProCure21 and ProCure21+, clients were very satisfied with their final product and service received. General defects were minor, safety figures were above industry average and cost and time predictability figures showed good performance.
Other indicators show that ProCure21 and ProCure21+ schemes were no more expensive than traditionally procured schemes and significant cost savings could be made through a shorter tender and construction time periods.
ProCure22 performance KPI values for 2020 shown against national averages and previous four years
| Percentage |
|
|
Predictability time
|
|
|
Predicatability cost (GMP)
|
|
|
Safety
|
|
|
Defects at handover
|
|
|
Client satisfaction: Service
|
|
|
Client satisfaction: Product
|
| Percentage |
|
Cost data from projects under the P21 and P21+ frameworks has been publishing since 2012 in order to drive down costs to deliver 15-20% savings, identified within the Government Construction Strategy.
Other cost savings
ProCure22 contracts were not required to be advertised in accordance with EU rules. This provides an average estimated time saving of six months per contract. The BCIS survey of tender prices (Q4-2007) forecasted a tender price rise of 5.1%. A six month time saving would therefore equate to approximately 2.55% capital cost saving over this period.
Analysis of ProCure21+ schemes showed comparatively shorter construction periods – 7 weeks for schemes between £1-5m and 17 weeks for schemes between £5-15m. This could equate to cost savings of approximately 1% of capital cost depending on changing tender index figures.