M&E Maintenance: Can Clients and Suppliers Both Win and Still Play by the Rules?

By Tom Lyons, Operations Director, CORE Maintenance Services

Most clients want transparency from their M&E maintenance supplier. They want fair pricing, clear evidence, value for money and confidence that any recommended works are necessary, proportionate and commercially sound. That is entirely reasonable, and good suppliers should expect to be challenged. But transparency in M&E maintenance works best when it is treated as a two-way process, and Tom Lyons, Operations Director at CORE Maintenance Services, explains why both sides have to enable it.

Transparency has to be a two-way process

Too often, transparency is seen as something the supplier must provide, rather than something both sides have to enable. A supplier cannot price risk accurately if it is not allowed to understand the risk in the first place.

This is where the relationship between client and supplier can become difficult. Budgets may be kept broad, asset histories may be incomplete and future plans for the building may not always be shared. At the same time, the supplier is expected to provide a fixed, competitive and reliable price. The result is not usually better value — it is more uncertainty, more caveats and more risk priced into the proposal.

Not all M&E maintenance works carry the same risk

In M&E maintenance, this matters because not all works carry the same level of urgency or risk. Some jobs are essential for compliance, others are needed to prevent asset failure, reduce downtime or deal with recurring issues. Some may improve efficiency, comfort or long-term building performance but can be planned for a later date.

Without a clear understanding of the client’s priorities, budget parameters and asset condition, a supplier can still produce a price — but it may not be the most accurate price, the most appropriate solution or the most useful recommendation.

Why procurement needs to mature

This is where the procurement process needs to mature. Playing by the rules should not mean keeping the contractor at arm’s length until the point of appointment. Governance, approvals and value-for-money checks are essential, but they work best when decisions are based on evidence, not assumptions. That does not mean giving a supplier a blank cheque — it means creating the conditions for proper advice and commercially sound decision-making.

Budget visibility works in the client’s favour

Budget is a good example. Many clients are cautious about sharing budget information because they worry the price will simply rise to meet it. That concern is understandable, but when handled properly, budget visibility can have the opposite effect.

If a supplier understands the available spend, it can help the client prioritise. It can separate urgent compliance requirements from desirable upgrades. It can explain what needs to be done now, what can be phased and what can reasonably wait. That is not about encouraging clients to spend more — it is about helping them spend more wisely.

One job, more than one option

The same applies to options. A lighting upgrade, for example, might be priced in more than one way. A standard LED replacement may solve the immediate issue, while a more considered design solution may cost more upfront but deliver better performance, improved user experience and stronger long-term value. The client should be able to see both routes and understand the cost and benefit of each. That is very different from receiving one figure with little explanation and being asked to approve it.

Asset information changes the conversation

Asset information is equally important. A supplier with access to asset registers, service histories, compliance records and known problem areas can give better advice than one walking into a building cold. It can see patterns, understand previous interventions and assess whether equipment should be repaired, upgraded or planned for replacement.

Without that information, suppliers often have to price for the unknown. This can mean extra allowances for risk, more caveats or a proposal that is technically sound but commercially difficult for the client to accept. With better visibility, the conversation changes: it becomes less about individual job costs and more about managing the building properly.

Building a clearer picture of risk

Over time, a good M&E maintenance partner should be able to help the client build a clearer picture of risk across the estate. That might include assets approaching the end of their lifecycle, systems with recurring failures, areas of compliance exposure or future capital expenditure that needs to be planned.

For the client, this creates control. Instead of reacting to breakdowns, they can plan ahead, allocate budget and reduce disruption. This is particularly important in buildings where operational continuity is critical and where failure of key systems can affect occupants, service delivery or business performance.

A trusted maintenance relationship can also reduce the noise within a building. When assets are better understood and works are planned rather than reactive, there are fewer emergency callouts, fewer unexpected costs and fewer difficult conversations about why something has suddenly failed.

Continuity without complacency

Continuity has value too. A regular supplier builds knowledge of the estate, the client’s expectations and the operational pressures within the building. That familiarity can support faster response times, better advice and more commercially realistic rates, because the supplier is not pricing from a standing start each time. However, this continuity must not become complacency. A strong supplier relationship still needs scrutiny, proper approvals and clear evidence that costs are fair and works are necessary. Trust should never replace governance — it should make governance stronger.

Equally, constantly changing supplier may appear to test the market, but it can also mean losing valuable site knowledge and starting again from scratch. The cheapest price is not always the best outcome if it is based on limited understanding of the building and its risks. The aim should not be to push unnecessary work through the system, but to give the client enough evidence to decide what genuinely needs doing, what can wait and what represents the best long-term value.

Open, evidenced and properly managed

The best client and supplier relationships are not cosy or commercially loose. They are open, evidenced and properly managed. For transparent M&E maintenance pricing to work, both sides need to be open about the information that shapes cost, risk and value — sharing priorities, budgets, asset information and future plans early enough for advice to be meaningful.

That is how both sides win, and still play by the rules. To discuss transparent, evidence-based M&E maintenance for your estate, talk to the CORE Maintenance Services team.