|
Memorandum
from
Summary
· West Sussex County Council (WSCC) continues to support the FiReControl project and the operational capability, resilience and financial benefits identified by the project business case.
· Delays in the delivery of FiReControl have necessitated the upgrading of the current mobilising system at an increased financial burden to WSCC.
· A series of delays and the existing uncertainty as to the delivery of the project has resulted in a lack of confidence in CLG to deliver a product that will meet the user's requirements.
· The current financial climate and its impact on Fire and Rescue Services will put pressure on the internal capacity available.
· Confidence in the ability of EADS to deliver a fit for purpose solution remains low.
· Confidence in the ability of the project to deliver any financial efficiencies remains low.
· The moral of current staff is difficult to maintain due to the large number of uncertainties surrounding the project.
· Any further delays will take the project into cutover close to the London 2012 Olympics, which may cause resilience and capacity issues.
Introduction
1. West Sussex
Fire and Rescue Service (WSFRS), is one of nine Fire and Rescue Services (FRS)
within the South East Region and is part of West Sussex County Council (WSCC).
This report is submitted on behalf of WSCC and the areas identified within it
relate to the impact delays have had on WSCC and WSFRS. The authors of this
submission have been afforded the opportunity to input the South East Regional
Management Board (
2. WSCC maintains support for the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) stated position on FiReControl; it continues to support the project from a regional and internal perspective and remains committed to delivery within the current stated timeframes.
3. In order to provide information that will assist the committee in considering:
· Progress with the project so far, · The reasons for the cost and time overruns which the project has experience; and · What, if any, changes need to be made to the Government's plans for proceeding with the project.
WSFRS has identified a number of key themes, which will provide the foundation for this submission.
o Longevity of legacy systems and replacement costs o Overall project delays and FRS confidence o Capacity to deliver in current economic climate o European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) performance to date o Premises costs and staffing models/costs o Effect on staff morale o Effect on control staff recruitment and retention o Olympics impact o Technical Issues
Longevity of legacy systems and replacement costs
4. The cutover date for the SE region FiReControl has suffered a number of delays from October 2009 as stated in the Fire control full business case version 1.0 to the latest date of March 2012. These delays have put the Service in a position of having to decide whether to continue maintaining legacy systems and equipment or to replace them as part of the existing mobilising and communications programme.
5. Had the original cut over date been met the existing WSFRS mobilising system would have been fit for purpose up to this point and the additional financial burden placed upon the Service would have been limited to that required to facilitate data migration for the FiReControl project and related work. However due to the delays in cutover the WSFRS mobilising system has reached a point where either upgrade or replacement has become essential.
6. As a result of lack of confidence in the FiReControl project being delivered on time WSFRS commissioned a Mobilising and Communications Capital Project. The strategy of this project was to assess the risks associated with the FiReControl project and has resulted in a plan to replace the mobilising and communication system in a modular way. This forward thinking on behalf of the Service has now paid dividends and risk critical services can be maintained.
7. An IT upgrade of the existing mobilising system was favoured over replacement in order to lessen the financial burden placed on the Local Authority. It is fair to say that were it not for the RCC project the Service would have been likely to adopt a different approach to the procurement of a future mobilising system by entering a competitive tendering process and establishing a long term mobilising solution covering all aspects of the system.
8. In the long term WSCC still feel in a position of vulnerability with regard to the upgraded mobilising system. This is due to the upgrade being a mid term solution in order to allow the County to maintain risk critical systems and allow for data migration to RCC. Current lack of confidence in the RCC going live within the existing projected time frames or either cancellation or change of direction would leave the Service requiring a replacement mobilising system in place within four to five years. The financial burden placed upon the County has been significant with a capital expenditure of circa £275,000, and revenue costs being met by utilising existing staff for project management and functions which have impacted upon the delivery of other work streams.
Overall project delays and FRS confidence
9. The RCC project has experienced a series of delays from the signing of the initial contract through to the last official delay announced during the summer of 2009. There is also a widely held belief that cut over will not take place within the current time frames. This has resulted in considerable amounts of additional time being required for managing the new time tables, re mapping resource plans to the transition plan, submitting reports to both local and national controlling bodies, re- allocating work activities, in addition to identifying how these changes affect competing service resource requirements. The overall effects of these delays has resulted in a lack of confidence for many of those working closely with the project and a difficulty keeping personnel focused on activities allocated to them.
10 Many within the Fire and Rescue Service community feel that detail of what the FiReControl project will and will not actually deliver in operation has yet to be clearly presented. Progression beyond a "concept" has yet to be clearly articulated and FRSs have and are continually being required to develop solutions to problems that should have been considered at a much earlier stage in the project life cycle. The lack of clear direction from CLG and the inability to provide detail/clarification on request has naturally impacted on confidence of individuals striving to deliver project work streams.
Capacity to deliver in current economic climate
12. Although grants have been made available from the CLG throughout, not all FRS activity has been covered by a grant. To provide accurate evidence of this expenditure would prove particularly difficult as to do so would require a complicated breakdown of the work undertaken by each individual involved in the project as well as any associated costs, travelling, accommodation, equipment etc. Nevertheless, in view of the outlook for local government finance beyond 2010/11, it is difficult to say whether it will be possible to maintain this level of unfunded commitment and so an increase in specific grant may become necessary if FRA-dependent activity is to be completed to schedule.
13. WSFRS like many other FRSs across the country are facing an uncertain financial future. It is however fairly clear that public sector funding is coming under increased scrutiny and will be reduced. Internal capacity is coming sharply into focus and the requirement to deliver internal improvement and RCC work streams within the extant and projected future funding arrangements will become increasingly difficult and impact on both quantity and quality of what is delivered.
European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) performance to date
14. Initial contact with EADS was positive with them portraying the image of a 'can do' organisation that place a premium on communication with partners. This has not however been the experience in reality with almost a year between formal contract signing and any direct contact with FRSs. The mitigation offered at the time suggested that EADS did not have sufficient personnel to resource the project and it took a considerable period of time to recruit and train staff to the required level. After this time the contact and level of commitment increased significantly and as a result the level of cooperation and understanding also improved. Following an EADS restructure in 2008 this level of commitment has reduced markedly, to the point where no day to day contact remains and only limited contact is made via regional coordinator meetings.
15. The late replacement of Ericsson with Intergraph has again raised significant questions about their ability to deliver a suitable solution on time. The continuous delays in the project perpetuate dissatisfaction and a lack of confidence in both the project and EADS performance.
Premises costs and staffing models/costs
16. The cost of the premises for the 25 year lifetime is high, available figures vary between £43m and £51m, and will be borne by the regional FRAs. WSCC have concerns regarding the level of value for money provided and the overall cost in comparison to what could reasonably be expected in a commercial market. In addition the specification for the buildings is partly a reflection of national infrastructure requirements. WSCC's view is that this element of cost should be funded by Government, especially when set in context of the concerns in paragraph 19 about the likelihood of the project delivering net savings.
17. Although SEFRCC are planning on staffing levels above that recommended in the national modelling there remains no guarantees that the proposed levels will be sufficient to deal with spate conditions or indeed steady state operations. This is however a matter of conjecture and will remain so until trialling has been carried out.
18. A number of risk critical functions currently delivered by existing control rooms/staff are deemed out of scope for FiReControl, these will still be required after cutover and FRSs will need to make local arrangements to facilitate this. To date the full extent of these requirements are unknown making it difficult to attach a resource and financial cost to it.
19. In
common with most of the SE region, West Sussex remains sceptical of the figures
in the business case and continues to doubt whether net savings will arise once
the full expenditure implications are taken into account. Consequently, even though the business case
optimistically suggests that
Effect on staff morale
20. At the initiation stage of the FiReControl project the effects on staff morale were obvious and quantifiable. Due to the number of delays and uncertainty regarding the project's future there has been a definite shift in how it is viewed by the existing control staff. There is now a general lack of belief that the project will ever be delivered, this view has been reinforced by the Conservative Party Green Paper and the recent change of position expressed by the LGA. This lack of belief has had an impact on the level of engagement in consultation by control staff.
21. Individuals remain unhappy about the prospect of moving to the RCC but this does not appear to be affecting performance or commitment.
Main concerns expressed by existing control staff: o Loss of identity due to no longer being part of an individual FRS. o Concerns over the ability to maintain the level of service delivery currently achieved. o Inconsistency with other arrangements, London RCC staff still belonging to the FRS but the other RCCs being LACC controlled. o Working along side colleagues under different Terms and Conditions o Losing the right to the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal especially for those who will have served almost 20 years.
Effect on Control Staff recruitment and retention
22. Traditionally recruitment and retention has not been a difficulty and this is still the case. However the insecurity felt by new employees due to temporary contractual arrangements is a concern particularly with regard to retention.
23. WSFRS did lose control staff in the early stages of the project but retention has not been a significant issue more recently, again this may be attributed to the lack of faith in the project being delivered.
24. The loss of experienced control staff to the FiReControl project and to other areas of the Service in order to secure their long term future has been experienced and is likely to increase as cut over approaches.
Olympics impact
25. WSCC remains committed to ensure all work is completed in order to meet the March 2012 cutover date. Should there be any further delays to cut over this would take the date dangerously close to the London 2012 Olympics. WSFRS will be integral to the emergency planning for the maintenance of Olympic infrastructure and any delays would have a serious impact on the Service's ability to facilitate both of these projects simultaneously.
26. The close proximity of cutover to the commencement of the London Olympics raises issues over the operational reliability of the new system, and the new operating procedures and ways of working for the RCC in tandem with the training that will be required by all FRS operational staff on special operational procedures relating to 2012 security and emergency arrangements.
27. There
remains a lack of clarity around how the National Coordinating Centre will
interact with the RCC and also the requirement for one RCC to act as the
controlling mind for
Technical Issues
28. A wide range of technical issues have been identified by the Service Technical Support professionals. It is not the intention to identify them in this submission but this report needs to highlight underperformance in the management of the technical aspects of the project and concerns over the ability of the final solution to deliver an acceptable product to the end users.
Conclusion
29. As previously stated WSCC remains committed to the FiReControl project and support the original stated benefits to be realised. WSCC has been forced to meet significant costs for upgrading the legacy system due to project delays, and it is clear that the originally stated cost benefits will not be realised. WSCC is disappointed in the historic central management of the project and confidence in the ability of EADS to deliver remains low.
January 2010 |