Key questions Do the Department for Transport, Highways Agency and local authorities have effective processes for making good decisions on maintenance spend to keep existing road infrastructure in a serviceable condition and whole-life cost to a minimum?  Has the Department delivered its planned efficiency savings for and ?  Are the systems to manage the whole-life costs of infrastructure operating effectively?  Are the bodies well placed to deliver planned efficiency savings over the remainder of this Spending Review period, while protecting taxpayers’ long term interests, and spend the extra resources for wisely? 1 Introduction for TAG National Transport Committee Maintenance for strategic infrastructure vfm study

What Two products: value for money assessment of maintenance of local and national highways with comparative analysis of other strategically significant infrastructure - publishing a report in April 2014; and cross-cluster client workshop to talk through the findings and themes that emerged from the work, and to facilitate the sharing of practical examples and solutions to current challenges faced by the wider asset management profession. Who Main methods: literature review – NAO, PAC and Transport Committee reports and academic papers data analysis - financial and management information validation work on the efficiency savings benchmarking against NAO and other good practice in maintenance and asset management case example visits – in-depth and semi-structured interviews and document review How Initially, the Highways Agency, the Department for Transport and local authorities. Moving on to compare and contrast with the systems for maintenance and decision-making in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (Ministry of Defence) and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and in the transport sector (National Rail and TfL) 2 Overview Introduction for TAG National Transport Committee

Audit work with the Department for Transport and engagement with local highways authorities Interviews, document review and data analysis at DfT covering:  DfT’s role, responsibility and accountability for maintaining road infrastructure  relationships with HA, Local Authorities, DCLG  funding flows and timing  maintenance expenditure – review of actual versus budget  plans for achieving the road maintenance budgets to March 2015 and from 2015 onwards  Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme – development, take-up and evaluation Interviews at local authorities covering  critical enablers and barriers to increasing efficiency  staff capability/capacity – to get the best out of the maintenance market Short web-based survey of local highways authority senior officials covering:  examples of efficiency  areas of strength and/or weakness in asset management  effect of fluctuations in funding for local road maintenance  knowledge of and views on DfT’s Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme 3 Introduction for TAG National Transport Committee

Timetable and pre-publication checks  Fieldwork and analysis Autumn 2013  Quality Assurance and drafting Spring 2014  Publication around Easter 2014 Where an authority is identifiable in the draft report we will provide them with relevant extracts in advance of publication and ask them to check whether what we have written is factually accurate and fairly presented. 4 Introduction for TAG National Transport Committee

Emerging themes for discussion  Differences between national and local road bodies in a time of reduced expenditure  Proportion of efficiency savings versus cuts, deferrals and transfers of costs  Uncertainty and timing of funding – affects efficiency and concerns about capacity for level of works  Asset condition affected because of changes in the balance between preventative and reactive maintenance  Patchy data for modelling forward programmes of work as well as for monitoring contractual performance  Lower levels of use of whole-life costing methods  Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme developed tools and now needs to focus on increasing uptake  Contract design and use of pain/gain share provisions not optimal 5 Introduction for TAG National Transport Committee