This paper was presented at the "Privatized maintenance : making it work" session. These proceedings are available on CD-ROM. Preservation of infrastructure asset value is achieved by timely and cost-effective maintenance. Such maintenance can generally be classified as rehabilitative or restoration, preventive and corrective. There are four basic alternative approaches to carrying out maintenance: (a) in-house, (b) force account, (c) contract, end result based, and (d) contract, long term performance based. In-house is the traditional approach, which is sometimes combined with force account. In recent years, however, there has been a growing trend to contracted maintenance around the world. In coming to a strategic decision as to which approach is best for an agency, a number of influencing factors should be considered, including type of asset(s) and condition, size and resources of the agency, past history and experience, political environment and degree of risk. As well, the pros and cons of each approach need to be carefully assessed, including the expected cost savings, and the experience of other agencies can be valuable. In contracting for maintenance, several key steps exist. These include a decision on end result or long term performance based, development of prequalification criteria, development of contract details and ongoing performance evaluation of the selected contractor. Examples of Canadian experience with end result contracted maintenance, and long term performance contracted maintenance, from New South Wales, Australia are provided in the paper. The former was initiated in British Columbia in 1988, while the Australian privatization was initiated in 1996. (A)
Abstract