Contractor Collaboration and Performance Management (Construction) survey

Guide to answering questions

Section A1 – Delivery Performance

This section evaluates Sydney Metro’s quality, time and cost performance.

Quality Performance

1a. How well did Sydney Metro provide clear direction and appropriate assurance?

Exemplar – New governance precedent that will have positive implications for Industry performance.
Excellent – Strong governance that will improve Industry’s ability to deliver.
On Target – Appropriate governance that will enable Industry to meet targets.
Acceptable – Some governance activities will need improvement, but will not impact on Industry’s ability to deliver.
Not on Target – Some governance activities will impact Industry’s ability to deliver, but can easily to be rectified.
Corrective Action – Inadequate level of governance will significantly impact Industry’s ability to deliver. Will need dedicated action to mitigate.
Unsustainable – Poor and/or unnecessary governance will significantly impact Industry’s ability to deliver. Executive investment required.
Critical – Governance practices will detrimentally impact Industry’s ability to deliver. Executive intervention essential.

1b. How well do you expect Sydney Metro will provide clear direction and appropriate assurance in the next period?

Exemplar – New governance precedent that will have positive implications for Industry performance.
Excellent – Strong governance that will improve Industry’s ability to deliver.
On Target – Appropriate governance that will enable Industry to meet targets.
Acceptable – Some governance activities will need improvement, but won’t impact on Industry’s ability to deliver.
Not on Target – Some governance activities will impact Industry’s ability to deliver, but can easily be rectified.
Corrective Action – Inadequate level of governance will significantly impact Industry’s ability to deliver. Will need dedicated action to mitigate.
Unsustainable – Poor and/or unnecessary governance will significantly impact Industry’s ability to deliver. Executive investment required.
Critical – Governance practices will detrimentally impact Industry’s ability to deliver. Executive intervention essential.

Time Performance

2a. How well did Sydney Metro meet its responsibilities to the agreed schedule/timelines

Exemplar – New time management precedent drove a step change in performance.
Excellent – All tasks were delivered on time, and Industry’s schedule risk has been reduced.
On Target – All tasks were delivered on time.
Acceptable – Task delivery slipped to tolerance, and did not impact Industry.
Not on Target – Task delays inconvenienced Industry. Needs attention.
Corrective Action – Task delays impacted Industry. Needs investment.
Unsustainable – Task delays caused major impact to Industry. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Unrecoverable slippage impacted overall delivery. Executive intervention needed.

2b. How well do you expect Sydney Metro will meet its responsibilities to the agreed schedule/timelines in the next period?

Exemplar – New time management precedent will drive a step change in performance.
Excellent – All tasks will be delivered on time, and Industry’s schedule risk has been reduced.
On Target – All tasks will be delivered on time.
Acceptable – Task delivery will slip to tolerance, and will not impact Industry.
Not on Target – Tasks will be delayed and will inconvenience Industry. Needs attention.
Corrective Action – Tasks will be delayed and will impact to Industry. Needs investment.
Unsustainable – Tasks will be delayed causing a major impact to Industry. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Unrecoverable slippage will impact overall delivery. Executive intervention needed.

Cost Performance

3a. How well did Sydney Metro manage activities that impacted Industry costs?

Exemplar – New cost management precedent has enabled a step change in financial performance
Excellent – Effectively managed and understood cost drivers, and reduced financial risk to Industry
On Target – Effectively managed and understood cost drivers
Acceptable – Managed and understood cost drivers. Improvement will assist Industry
Not on Target – Misunderstanding of cost drivers impeded Industry’s ability to deliver
Corrective Action – Misunderstanding of cost drivers impacted Industry. Needs investment.
Unsustainable – Will mismanage cost drivers that will materially impact Industry. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Will mismanage cost drivers that will challenge viability for Industry. Executive intervention needed.

3b. How well do you expect Sydney Metro will manage activities that may impact Industry costs in the next period?

Exemplar – New cost management precedent will enable a step change in financial performance.
Excellent – Will effectively manage and understand cost drivers, and reduce financial risk to Industry.
On Target – Will effectively manage and understand cost drivers.
Acceptable – Gaps in managing cost drivers, and will introduce risk to Industry.
Not on Target – Will misunderstand cost drivers, impeding Industry’s ability to deliver.
Corrective Action – Will misunderstand cost drivers, impacting Industry. Needs investment.
Unsustainable – Will mismanage cost drivers that will materially impact Industry. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Will mismanage cost drivers that will challenge viability for Industry. Executive intervention needed.

B1 – Sydney Metro – Behavioural Performance

This section evaluates Sydney Metro’s relationship and behaviour performance.

Collaboration

4a. How effective was Sydney Metro’s relationship with the Industry Partner?

Above Expectations – Active engagement, demonstrated deep trust and complete understanding of Industry’s needs.
As expected – Good level of trust and sought to understand Industry’s needs. Accepted feedback and acted accordingly.
Below expectation – Had some reservations but tried to understand Industry’s needs. Feedback not accepted well.
Not acceptable – Interactions were transactional. No demonstrated interest in building a relationship or understanding Industry’s needs. Feedback met with negativity.

4b. How well did Sydney Metro coordinate with third parties, including other industry players and government agencies?

Above Expectations – Active engagement, demonstrated deep trust and complete understanding of Industry’s needs.
As expected – Good level of trust and sought to understand Industry’s needs. Accepted feedback and acted accordingly.
Below expectation – Had some reservations but tried to understand Industry’s needs. Feedback not accepted well.
Not acceptable – Interactions were transactional. No demonstrated interest in building a relationship or understanding Industry’s needs. Feedback met with negativity.

4c. How well did the Sydney Metro manage the claims process to limit impact on Industry?

Above Expectations –Went over and above to quickly understand factors influencing contract performance, including influences beyond Industry’s control.
As expected – Reacted promptly and cooperatively to understand factors influencing contract performance, including influences beyond Industry’s control.
Below expectation – Could have reacted more promptly or more cooperatively to understand factors influencing contract performance, including influences beyond industry’s control.
Not acceptable – Rarely or never acts promptly or cooperatively to understand factors influencing contract performance, including influences beyond Industry’s control.

Responsiveness

5a. When circumstances changed, how well did Sydney Metro collaborate with Industry?

Above Expectations – Proactively engaged to forecast issues and Industry’s ability to respond. Actively used advice to optimise decisions.
As expected – Regularly sought and used advice from Industry to effectively respond to change.
Below expectation – Irregularly sought advice from Industry, or did not fully consider Industry before making decisions.
Not acceptable – Rarely or never approached Industry for advice, and didn’t consider Industry’s ability to respond to change.

5b. How timely was Sydney Metro’s decision-making?

Above Expectations – Routinely made early decisions, and provided enough notice for Industry to optimise their response and monitor effects.
As expected – Regularly made decisions in a timely manner and provided enough notice to respond appropriately.
Below expectation – Didn’t regularly make decisions in a timely manner, but occasionally provided enough notice to respond appropriately.
Not acceptable – Rarely or never made decisions in a timely manner, and rarely or never provided enough notice to respond appropriately.

Outcome Focus

6a. How well did Sydney Metro balance time, cost and quality, to drive best-for-project/service outcomes?

Above Expectations – Demonstrated a strong focus on getting the balance right through consistent trade-off considerations.
As expected – Regularly focussed on balance through trade-off considerations.
Below expectation – Didn’t regularly focus on balance through trade-off considerations.
Not acceptable – Provided no focus on what is best for the project/product/service outcome.

6b. How well did Sydney Metro enable Industry to improve and innovate?

Above Expectations – Proactively encouraged and enabled Industry to improve or innovate, with measurable benefits returned to the Infrastructure Sector.
As expected – Encouraged and enabled Industry to improve or innovate, with expected benefits to the Infrastructure Sector.
Below expectation – Didn’t encourage or enable Industry to improve or innovate. Could benefit from added support.
Not acceptable – Practices inhibited Industry’s ability to improve or innovate.

A2 – Industry – Delivery Performance

This section evaluates Industry’s quality, time and cost performance.

Quality Performance

Quality refers to standard of work and/or design

8a. How well did Industry deliver against agreed requirements?

Exemplar – Delivered a new benchmark for functionality and compliance, resulting in a step change in performance.
Excellent – Functional requirements exceeded expectations without introducing compliance risk.
On Target – Achieved functional and compliance requirements.
Acceptable – Achieved functional and compliance requirements, but needs to improve general practices.
Not on Target – Missed some of the agreed functional or compliance requirements, but gaps can be easily rectified.
Corrective Action – Missed some of the agreed functional or compliance requirements. Needs dedicated action to mitigate.
Unsustainable – Broadly missed functional or compliance requirements, affecting outcomes. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Missed essential functional or compliance levels prohibiting outcomes. Immediate executive intervention needed.

8b. How well do you expect Industry will deliver against the agreed requirements in the next period?

Exemplar – Will deliver a new benchmark for functionality and compliance, resulting in a step change in performance.
Excellent – Functional requirements will exceed expectations without introducing compliance risk.
On Target – Will achieve functional and compliance requirements.
Acceptable – Will achieved functional and compliance requirements, but needs to improve general practices.
Not on Target – Will miss some of the agreed functional or compliance requirements, but gaps can be easily rectified.
Corrective Action – Will miss some of the agreed functional or compliance requirements. Will need dedicated action to mitigate.
Unsustainable – Will broadly miss functional or compliance requirements, affecting outcomes. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Will miss essential functional or compliance levels prohibiting outcomes. Immediate executive intervention needed.

Time Performance

Note: Schedule includes other agreed timeframes, such availability or response metrics.

9a. How well did Industry deliver against agreed schedule/timelines?

Exemplar – A new benchmark in time management yielded a step change in integrated performance.
Excellent – All tasks were delivered on time, integrating with other activities to reduce Sydney Metro’s overall time risk.
On Target – All tasks were delivered on time.
Acceptable – Task delivery slipped to tolerance limits, creating risks but did not impact Sydney Metro.
Not on Target – Task delays inconvenienced Sydney Metro. Needs attention.
Corrective Action – Task delays impacted Sydney Metro. Needs investment.
Unsustainable – Task delays caused a major impact to Sydney Metro. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Timing created unrecoverable impact on overall delivery. Executive intervention needed.

9b. How well do you expect Industry will deliver against the agreed schedule/timelines in the next period?

Exemplar – A new benchmark in time management will yield a step change in integrated performance.
Excellent – All tasks will be delivered on time, integrating with other activities to reduce Sydney Metro’s overall time risk.
On Target – All tasks will be delivered on time.
Acceptable – Task delivery will slip to tolerance limits, creating risks but will not impact Sydney Metro.
Not on Target – Task delays will inconvenience Sydney Metro. Issues can be easily rectified.
Corrective Action – Task delays will impact Sydney Metro. Needs dedicated action to address.
Unsustainable – Task delays will cause a major impact to Sydney Metro. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Timing will create unrecoverable impact on overall delivery. Executive intervention needed.

Cost Performance

10a. How well did Industry manage costs within the agreed scope?

Exemplar – New cost management precedent enabled a step change in cost forecasting and control.
Excellent – Very effective cost forecasting and control that has reduced Sydney Metro’s financial risk.
On Target – Financial targets were met through effective forecasting and control.
Acceptable – Financial targets were met, but improvement to forecasting and/or control will assist Sydney Metro.
Not on Target – Did not meet financial targets, but recoverable.
Corrective Action – Financial issues impacted Sydney Metro. Needs investment.
Unsustainable – Poor financial/cost management materially impacted Sydney Metro. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Poor financial/cost management resulted in an unrecoverable position for Sydney Metro. Executive intervention needed.

10b. How well do you expect Industry will manage costs in the next period?

Exemplar – New cost management precedent will enable a step change in cost forecasting and control.
Excellent – Very effective cost forecasting and control that will reduce Sydney Metro ‘s financial risk.
On Target – Financial targets will be met through effective forecasting and control.
Acceptable – Financial targets will be met, but improvement to forecasting and/or control will assist Sydney Metro.
Not on Target – Will not meet financial targets, but recoverable.
Corrective Action – Financial issues will impact Sydney Metro. Needs dedicated action to address.
Unsustainable – Poor financial/cost management will materially impact Sydney Metro. Executive investment sought.
Critical – Poor financial/cost management will result in an unrecoverable position for Sydney Metro. Executive intervention needed.

B2 – Industry – Behavioural Performance

This section evaluates Industry’s relationship and behaviour performance.

Collaboration

11a. How effective was Industry’s relationship with Sydney Metro Partner?

Above Expectations – Active engagement, demonstrated deep trust and complete understanding of Sydney Metro’s needs.
As expected – Good level of trust and sought to understand Sydney Metro ‘s needs. Accepted feedback and acted accordingly.
Below expectation – Had some reservations but tried to understand Sydney Metro’s needs. Feedback not accepted well.
Not acceptable – Interactions were transactional. No demonstrated interest in building a relationship or understanding Sydney Metro’s needs. Feedback met with negativity.

11b. How well did Industry coordinate with third parties, including other industry players and government agencies?

Above Expectations – Understood all performance interdependencies and proactively managed them to optimise internal and external results.
As expected – Proactive coordination with others linked to broader performance.
Below expectation – Only coordinated with others when requested to by Sydney Metro.
Not acceptable – Teamed poorly with others, impacting broader and/or downstream performances.

11c. How appropriate were the claims submitted by Industry?

Above Expectations – Always provides accurate and factual justification for claim event and value. No further clarifications needed for settlement.
As expected – Mostly provides accurate and factual justification for claim event and value. Few further clarifications needed for settlement.
Below expectation – Sometimes provides accurate and factual justification for claim event and value. Further clarifications are regularly needed for settlement.
Not acceptable – Claims are rarely accurate or factually justified. Settlement of claims is contentious needing executive intervention.

Responsiveness

12a. When circumstances changed, how well did Industry collaborate with Sydney Metro?

Above Expectations – Actively monitored emerging risks, issues and opportunities with dependable, complete advice. Re-prioritised to optimise changing circumstances.
As expected – Provided dependable, complete advice within scope. Regularly re-prioritised activities to meet changing circumstances.
Below expectation – Irregular, incomplete input to issues. Unwilling to re-prioritise activities to meet changing circumstances.
Not acceptable – Did not contribute to resolving issues. Resistant to re-prioritising activities to meet changing circumstances.

12b. How well did Industry respond to agreed changes and timeframes?

Above Expectations – Responded to change very quickly, providing ample notice for Sydney Metro to maximise benefit from the change.
As expected – Regularly responded to change within the agreed time, allowing Sydney Metro to benefit from the change.
Below expectation – Did not respond to change within the agreed time, reducing Sydney Metro’s benefit from the change.
Not acceptable – Rarely or never responded to change within the agreed time. Sydney Metro was usually negatively impacted by the change.

Outcome Focus

13a. How well did Industry balance time, cost and quality, to drive best-for-project/service outcomes?

Above Expectations – Demonstrated a strong focus on getting the balance right through consistent trade-off considerations.
As expected – Regularly focussed on balance through trade-off considerations.
Below expectation – Didn’t regularly focus on balance through trade-off considerations.
Not acceptable – Provided no focus on what is best for the project/product/service outcome.

13b. How well did Industry foster an innovative, improvement-oriented environment?

Above Expectations – Demonstrated strong commitment to continuous improvement and innovation, maximising value to Sydney Metro.
As expected – Implemented improvements and/or innovative practices that increased value to Sydney Metro.
Below expectation – Introduced improvements with some value to Sydney Metro. Level of commitment to improvement was lower than expected.
Not acceptable – Did not improve and/or innovate. Overall, practices have remained stagnant or have deteriorated.

D1 – Executive Viewpoint on Sydney Metro’s Performance

15a. Overall, how well did Sydney Metro perform in this reporting period?

Excellent – Ideal partner. Went above and beyond to support Industry Partner outcomes requirements.
On Target – Good partner. Met all expectations to support Industry Partner outcome requirements.
Acceptable – Good partner, with some areas of improvement that would assist the Industry Partner
Not on Target – Would be a good partner, but either over-governance or insufficient governance had a negative impact on the Industry Partner.
Corrective Action – Would be a good partner with increased internal investment, underperformance is still within the partner’s control to remediate.
Unsustainable – Poor partner, causing significant performance challenges for the Industry Partner.
Critical – Unacceptable level of performance that cannot be continued.

15b. How well do you expect Sydney Metro to perform in the next reporting period?

Excellent – Ideal partner. Will continue to go above and beyond to support Industry Partner outcomes requirements.
On Target – Good partner. Will continue to meet all expectations to support Industry Partner outcome requirements.
Acceptable – Good partner, will continue to require some areas of improvement that would assist the Industry Partner.
Not on Target – Would be a good partner, but will continue to either over-govern or under- govern and have a negative impact on the Industry Partner.
Corrective Action – Would be a good partner with increased internal investment, underperformance is still within the partner’s control to remediate.
Unsustainable – Poor partner, will continue to cause significant performance challenges for the Industry Partner.
Critical – Will continue to provide an unacceptable level of performance that cannot be continued.

D2 – Executive Viewpoint on Industry’s Performance

16a. Overall, how well did Industry perform in this reporting period?

Excellent – Ideal partner. Went above and beyond to support Sydney Metro Partner outcomes requirements.
On Target – Good partner. Met all expectations to support Sydney Metro Partner outcome requirements.
Acceptable – Good partner, with some areas of improvement that would assist the Sydney Metro Partner.
Not on Target – Would be a good partner, but either over-delivery or insufficient deliver had a negative impact on the Sydney Metro Partner.
Corrective Action – Would be a good partner with increased internal investment, underperformance is still within the partner’s control to remediate.
Unsustainable – Poor partner, causing significant performance challenges for the Sydney Metro Partner.
Critical – Unacceptable level of performance that cannot be continued.

16b. How well do you expect Industry to perform in the next reporting period?

Excellent – Ideal partner. Will continue to go above and beyond to support Sydney Metro Partner outcomes requirements.
On Target – Good partner. Will continue to meet all expectations to support Sydney Metro Partner outcome requirements.
Acceptable – Good partner, will continue to require some areas of improvement that would assist the Sydney Metro Partner.
Not on Target – Would be a good partner, but will continue to either over-deliver or under-deliver and have a negative impact on the Sydney Metro Partner.
Corrective Action – Would be a good partner with increased internal investment, underperformance is still within the partner’s control to remediate.
Unsustainable – Poor partner, will continue to cause significant performance challenges for the Sydney Metro Partner.
Critical – Will continue to provide an unacceptable level of performance that cannot be continued.