Prestatiegericht Onderhoud (PGO)
Peter Booij
Manager Contracting
18 th November 2011

 Historical perspective
 Program PGO
• Targets and means
 Contract model PGO
• Contract Structure
•
Requirements & Scope of Works
• Tender principles & award criteria
• Incentives en payment
• Performance en costs
2

Present day
1994 1998 2000 2002 2005 2007
OPC/PGO
Alliance: contracts based on
KPI’s and maintenance units
OPC+
Procurement:
Performance based contracts
Outsoursing:
OPC contracts based on input: workplans and maintenance specs
Internal distiction Increase in more business
Management - Operation like attitude contracts based on activities and workplans
Management focus more on RAMS than on cost
2011
3

2
Wp
11
14
17
16
Contract distribution in
OPC
4

5

 Strong reduction of costs (25%+)
 Reduction of Out of Service Periods
 Improve on failure performance
 Stabilize the overall quality of the infrastructure
>>>
 Mobilize the ‘know how’ of contractors
 Compete on smart maintenance not on man hour costst
 Manage on infra performance in stead of realized work
6

Asset Rail
Strukton
Volker Rail
BAM Rail
Spitzke
In tendering
In preparation
Drenthe
Contract distribution in
PGO - november 2011
Zeeland
Rijn & Gouwe Eemland
Dordrecht
Betuwe
Veluwe
Gelre
Twente
De Peel
7

8

9

 A change in style of requirements:
 We used to prescribe the frequency and nature of inspections.

We made agreements on the quantity and nature of maintenance.

We did NOT make an explicit agreement on the performance of the infrastructure
>>> New requirements
10

/
11

Safety System Requirements
Waarborgen veiligheid
Ontsporingsvrij dragen
Voorkomen mens/dier
12

Safety System Requirements
 Keep the track within a alignment for x km/h
 Prevent defects and electrocution on installations for power supply
 Keep switches within safety tolerances
 Keep railway crossings fail safe
 Etc etc
13

 Durability: condition in which the Life Cycle Cost are minimal (presumed)
 Keep the position overhead wires within certain tolerances
 Keep the switches within certain tolerances to prevent ‘wear and tear’
 Keep the overall geometry of the track within certain tolerances
 Repair all defects on the infrastructure within 3 months.
 Etc etc
14

 Use FMECA to define all possible (underlying) failmechanisms causing possible deviations to the requirements.
 Use FMECA to define all MTBF of infrastructure objects
 Maintain accordingly to the FMECA results
 Use an inspection regime to validate FMECA results
 Proof to ProRail that the infrastructure is OK!
 Bottom line: PREVENT DEVIATIONS FROM
HAPPENING!
15

 All track and switches, power supply, signalling, overhead wire, civil structures, telecom
 All ‘small’ renewals
 All renewals caused by RCF
 Contractor is responsible for the quality of all objects until ProRail executes her major renewal plans (5 year forecast is given to contractor)
16

 In principal: Monthly fixed price payments
 no deviations? 105% payment of fixed price
 >0 deviations? 75% payment of fixed price, 25% after deviations have been restored in time. Too late? 15% penalty
 Small (large) number of deviations throughout the year? Up to 5% bonus (or 10% reduction)
 Rather serious safety deviation: 30% penalty
 Bonus (or reduction) up to 5% if Urgent Failure performance is going well (bad) throughout the year
17

/
 In principal: 5 or 6 years
 However : In case of a serious safety incident the contract will end. Contract will be re tendered, contractor is liable for damage
 Too much Urgent Failures over a period of years? Contract may end.
18

 Fixed Monthly Price (85%)
 Number of required ‘Out of service periods’ (15%), at least 99,37% availability
 Urgent failures (Euro 100/minute reduction on price)
 Savings on LCC by postponement of renewals by
ProRail. (reduction on price)
And..
 A few price agreements for settlement of future changes in the contract
19

 Financial targets have been well achieved
 Urgent Failure minutes reduced. For example PGO 2: The contractor offers a reduction from 70.000 minutes to 43.000 minutes a year.
 Out of service periods: Down by 50 –
75% and no more conflicts with the time table
20

21