Building standards - operating and performance frameworks for verifiers: research summary

Annex D - Supplementary document to proposed frameworks

Phase 2 Review of the Operating and Performance Frameworks

Supplementary document to proposed changes

About this document

This document should be read in conjunction with the draft revised versions of the operating (See Annex A) and performance (See Annex B & C) frameworks, submitted to BSD by Pye Tait Consulting in January 2025, following detailed and extensive engagement with Review Group members and verifiers.

This document summarises additional proposals/considerations that go beyond those already reflected in the draft revised frameworks. These are considered important, however, the details (including precise wording, definitions, fit and associated guidance) will likely require further work in consultation with LABSS and verifiers.

It is understood that whilst the workstream to review the frameworks is now complete, there will be broader operational work taken forward through existing continuous improvement activities which the BSD Verification Team undertake as business as usual.

This document covers:

• Part 1 : KPO1 – KPO7 (NB based on 2024 version numbering)
• Part 2 : New draft KPO on Workforce and Overall Performance
• Part 3 : Data reporting considerations
• Part 4 : Performance Framework
• Part 5 : Operating Framework

Part 1 : KPO1 – KPO7 (NB based on 2024 version numbering)

KPO1

• Suggested change of reference from ‘customer agreements’ to ‘verification extensions’ or ‘complex applications’ as the customer does not always agree with the verifier’s decision. There is potential here for confusing terminology with extension to warrant and extension to dwellings – this would require further consideration and agreement.
• Definition of this category, noting the following:
  • Suggestion of >£250,000.00 to be confirmed by the receipting verifier based on due judgment, i.e. some high value applications do not need a longer timescale and would not be complex – this would require further consideration and agreement.
  • Compliance Plan workstream is likely to advance a risk-based approach to provide a small number of compliance pathways. This risk-based approach for all applications will expect the verifier to allocate a risk level at building warrant application stage, or earlier (a pre-warrant submission for the highest risk projects is anticipated). Applications at or above a certain risk level would then fall within scope of a ‘customer agreement’ - this would require further consideration and agreement when the Compliance Plan outcomes are known.
  • Operational consideration: potentially use customer agreement facility in Uniform, but would need to be developed so the time period set by the verifier is stated and to measure if the first response meets that date. Similarly, for amended plans/final pieces of information, this should be set separately. This would require further consideration and agreement when the Compliance Plan outcomes are known.
  • Consider suggested changes for KPO1 data reporting – this would require further consideration and agreement:

1.8 Number of first reports issued (and building warrants and amendments issued without a first report):

• in more than 20 days and within 25 days
• in more than 25 days and within 40 days
• in more than 40 days

1.9 Number of building warrants and amendments to building warrant issued.

1.10 Number of building warrants and amendments to building warrant issued (following a first or subsequent report) within the following days of the verifier receiving all satisfactory information:

• in more than 10 days and within 15 days
• in more than 15 days and within 20 days
• in more than 20 days
• Consider suggested changes for KPO1 targets and category breakdowns – this would require further consideration and agreement:

Non-complex applications

1.3 80% of first reports (for non-complex building warrants and amendments) issued within 25 days – all first reports (including BWs and amendments issued without a first report).

1.4 80% of non-complex building warrants and amendments issued within 15 days from receipt of all satisfactory information – all building warrants and amendments (not including BWs and amendments issued without a first report).

Verification Extension (complex) applications

1.5 X% of first reports (for complex building warrants and amendments) issued within the time-period set by the verifier – all first reports (including BWs and amendments issued without a first report).

1.6 X% of complex building warrants and amendments issued within the time-period set by the verifier from receipt of all satisfactory information – all building warrants and amendments (not including BWs and amendments issued without a first report).

• Consider suggested changes for KPO1 notes – this would require further consideration and agreement:

For the purpose of this KPO, the time taken should be recorded from day zero and the number of applications received within a reporting period should be calculated using the valid date. For reporting purposes, if a valid application is received before 5pm, then the date of receipt is day zero. If received after 5pm, the following day is day zero.

KPO 2

• Clearer explanation needed for Data Reporting items 2.2 and 2.3, including a definition of “fully achieved” to allow for consistency in reporting:
  • Suggested definition: “Accepted completion certificate at the appropriate time in the construction process”; however it was acknowledged this would need wider agreement and a definition would form part of the Compliance Plan workstream.
  • Suggestion that any changes to KPO2 should be aligned with outputs from Compliance Plan upon completion, as part of the next framework review in 2029.
• Ref new proposed item 5 under Requirements of Verifiers, it was suggested setting a target of 100% on the basis that it is appropriate to set targets to confirm verifiers are covering off all actions, regardless of notification. This would require further consideration and agreement.
• Suggestion to maintain number of notifications so that verifiers and BSD can work to improve (some verifiers get lots of notifications because they have provided consequences for not notifying such as a delay at completion certificate stage, opening things up, providing other evidence etc.) This would require further consideration and agreement.
• Ref. new proposed item 2.6 under Data Reporting, based on work undertaken by the Compliance Capacity Working Group and Time Recording Working Group – changes suggested to data reporting under KPO2 – further clarity required on the rationale and reporting and how data links to support a KPO target. Suggest this requires further work to develop once Compliance Plan outcomes are known and working group outputs are completed:
  • Total number of inspections completed.
  • Time recording of compliance actions once the building warrant has been issued.
• Suggestion to enable better reporting of qualitative data by identifying themes of non-compliance but there would more work required to back-office systems to enable this. This would require further consideration and agreement when the Compliance Plan outcomes are known.

Wider KPO2 considerations which fall outwith the scope of this review:

• Further guidance/advice should be given to the relevant person submitting the completion certificate to ensure procedures are followed.
• The Review Group highlighted the need for a cultural change, not only on the part of the relevant person, but also for the building standards surveyor required to record more detailed information on reasons for non-compliance through context reporting.
• General agreement among Review Group members that it is difficult to propose changes to KPO2 until the outcomes of the Compliance Plan workstream are fully known and any legislative changes have been made.
• Agreement that more widespread reporting on industry failures, i.e. CCNPs not being responded to/ notification levels, would be a useful measure to determine the extent to which industry is playing their part.

KPO 3

Removed and merged with KPO 7 – suggest amending to new KPO for Workforce and Overall Performance

KPO 4

• General agreement among Review Group that a key issue is low response rates which would not affect the KPO itself.
• A mechanism to understand why a low rating was received, such as including the application ref/contact details may be beneficial for verifiers by enabling them to respond and remove erroneous ratings.
• It was noted that removing anonymity could have an adverse effect on response rates and respondent honesty. Additionally, it would not be in line with standard research practice.
• It is understood that these issues were considered during previous annual reviews of the survey and the ability to remove erroneous ratings has been in place for a few years.
• Collecting contact details was also considered, however this was not agreed.
• Guidance was previously issued to encourage verifiers to proactively promote the survey and ensure customers can contact the service directly through local communication channels and customer forums, events etc.
• The platform will continue to be reviewed annually based on verifier feedback.
• Review Group disagreed with the idea of introducing a measure relating to the complaints received/upheld due to additional reporting burdens this would present.
• Suggestion to remove reference to being “able to respond” on the basis of the survey being anonymous: it was noted that the current wording of the KPO refers to responding to the general feedback and messaging from the customer survey and any changes would require further consideration and agreement.

KPO 5

• Consider suggested changes to title and purpose section of KPO5 – it is understood that some authorities do not generate enough fee income to cover staff costs so ‘growth’ may be inappropriate terminology. This would require further consideration and agreement.

Ensure financial governance and growth

The aim of this KPO is to monitor verification fee income and the costs of running the verification service, in order to:

a. ensure sufficient money is available to deliver the building standards service

b. monitor the relationships between fee income and verification costs

c. identify the reinvestment of building warrant fee income into the building standards service to improve and enhance service delivery

d. ensure building standards service budgets are sufficient to fully deliver on verifier requirements contained within the Operating and performance frameworks, as well as the professional competency framework.

• Consider whether the performance target of 130% staff costs covered is still appropriate or should be adjusted. It is understood this was considered during previous research on fees and any changes will require further consideration and agreement.
• Consider amending reporting for: Staff costs for verification. Overalll and separate breakdowns for ‘plan checking’ and ‘compliance inspections and actions’.
• Paragraphs 2 and 3 in the Notes section to fully articulate what is meant by staff costs, non-staff costs, and other verification-related investment (i.e. data reporting items 5.2-5.4). Guidance would require further consideration and agreement.
• Enforcement costs considered difficult to account for in the performance framework, i.e. length of time to determine and this also brings in local authority functions into a verifier framework, i.e. scope creep – it is understood that current staff costs are reported for ‘all staff’ and breakdowns for ‘verification staff costs’ including sub categories for plan checking & inspection, however changes would require further consideration and agreement.
• KPO 7 to capture how verifiers reinvest surplus income – it is understood this is already captured in KPO5.2 investment fields as % investment, non-staff costs plus staff costs (as a separate measure from 5.1 target which is just fee income against ‘verification staff costs’) there is potential to report 5.2 as a measure and/or ask for more detailed breakdowns of KPO5 in the annual report template. Data reporting for this is already embedded however, agreement would be required to add this into KPO5 targets and/or include more detailed reporting in the report template.

KPO 6

Removed and merged into cross-cutting themes

KPO 7

• All points agreed and included in the revised draft framework including new draft template for Building Standards Annual Report: Business Plan & Customer Charter.
• Suggest amending to KPO6.
• Ensure alignment with workforce roles and breakdowns.

Part 2 : New draft KPO on Workforce and Overall Performance

New draft KPO: Workforce and Overall Performance (See ANNEX C)

• Agreement that some indication of productivity through workforce data collection would be useful, such as gathering data on time spent mentoring and peer reviewing new or less experienced staff which is likely to have an impact on productivity. This will require further consideration during the operational review of the national workforce data collection

Part 3 : Data reporting considerations

Data reporting considerations

• In addition to KPO targets, each KPO has a RAG criteria applied to targets and forms part of the reports available to BSD and verifiers through ScotXEd. Inclusion of the RAG criteria in the detail of each KPO within the framework would bring further clarity and transparency.
• Additional data reporting was discussed and it was suggested that a review of the additional data section published in the annual report should be reviewed along with a review of the data required for this since his data does not form part of the KPO targets requirements and some data is available from other sources. Further consideration and agreement to ensure the purpose of collecting each dataset is clear and transparent.
• It was acknowledged that BSD have short-term monthly data requests in place to inform fees increases and any aspects which are agreed, following proper consultation, can be considered during future operational reviews of the national data collections for workforce or performance.
• During the research, a number of concerns and operational barriers around changes to data collections were discussed. It was evident that external pressures to develop complex IT systems presents significant risks to the operation of verification services by impacting local capacity to deliver frontline services.
• It was noted that the issue of burdens placed on local government by central government is specifically addressed by Scottish Government at a national level through the new deal for local government, Verity House Agreement (VHA).
• The frameworks have been amended to reflect a stronger commitment from Scottish Government to adhere to the principles of the VHA. This includes ensuring data reporting is proportionate and changes are agreed with proper consultation with LABSS and verifiers. In addition, sufficient advance notice of proposals would support mutual trust, transparency and effective forward planning.
• Consider reviewing report formats within ScotXEd and operational review of data formats/uploads to streamline processes.
• Potential for SBSH to provide a mangers toolkit/modules on ScotXEd within the proposed content for the leadership development programme.

Part 4 : Performance Framework

Core perspectives and cross-cutting themes

• There was debate regarding the terminology contained within bullet 2 of ‘Operational and Financial Efficiency’ and whether the term “must” should be used instead of “should”. This would require further consideration in consultation with Scottish Government Legal Directorate.
• Core perspectives titles have been amended in the framework to reflect a stronger focus on Competency to:
  • Professional Competency & Operational Processes
  • Quality Customer Experience
  • Financial Integrity
• Suggestion that if the New KPO for Workforce & Overall Performance is approved, then this should sit under Professional Competency & Operational Processes as KPO3.

Part 5 : Operating Framework

Operating Framework

• Section 2.3, clarity sought within the document on the following (although this may need to be left to local interpretation):
  • What should be done with the 5% sample, for example whether this should be a mix of pre- and post-decisions
  • What is meant by “checked for accuracy”
  • What quality assurance should actually involve (e.g. is this linked to the risk assessment completed for each applications)
  • How checks should be prioritised, e.g. prioritising checks on newer staff
  • Consider amending section 2.3 to Verifiers must have processes and measures in place to ensure that a minimum sample (5%) of the total number of building warrant applications decided and completion certificate submissions decided are checked for accuracy before a decision is issued.
• Consider impartiality section under Annex A – Considerations for the Appointment of Verifiers: does this need to be strengthened following Grenfell recommendations? Ensure qualifications section matches streamlined job roles. Consider moving Annex A to a section at the front of framework to emphasis importance.
• Consider if any further legislative procedures should be added to Annex - Key Legislative Verification Procedures
• Consider 1.5 conflict of interest: should this be strengthened in response to Grenfell recommendations.