The long awaited James review has finally been published. Led by Sebastian James (a director at electrical retailer Dixons), the review panel was tasked with considering the Department for Education’s (DfE) existing capital expenditure and making recommendations for future delivery models for capital investment in schools.
There is a lot at stake given that, even with well publicised cuts, the budget for capital expenditure in schools is £15 billion over the next four years.
Building Schools for the Future
The review of Building Schools for the Future (BSF) identified evidence of poorly defined goals, allocation of funds based on inappropriate criteria, weaknesses caused by the lack of an “expert client” and a cumbersome and bureaucratic procurement process.
So, while it is important not to lose sight of the fact that there were some success stories in BSF, few would argue against the review’s core sentiment that reform is necessary to achieve value for money and fit-for-purpose school buildings in the new financial landscape.
Summary of recommendations
The review’s key recommendations include:
- Determining capital allocation using objective information on the need for pupil places and on the condition of the local school estate.
- Procuring and managing larger projects through a “central body” set up by the DfE.
- The central body putting in place a small number of new national procurement contracts for building projects.
- Developing a standardised suite of drawings and specifications that can be applied across a range of projects for new buildings.
- Utilising a fast-track approach to procurement to reduce the time and cost burden for bidders and the client.
- Making responsible bodies (usually the local authority or Academy trust) accountable for maintenance of facilities with clear parameters set for the standard of maintenance required.
Some of the review’s recommendations are likely to be subject to further consultation but there is a strong sense that they will largely be adopted by the government. Its initial response is expected within a month.
A new central body
As ever, the devil will be in the detail and work is required to turn the review’s recommendations into a workable model.
The success of the model is heavily dependent on the new central body, but its exact role and structure remain uncertain. The expectation is that Partnerships for Schools (PFS), the organisation responsible for delivery of BSF, will form the core of the new body. This may need extra resource and new expertise to deliver the pivotal role envisaged.
Local authorities will see the biggest change, being stripped of their direct involvement in procurement and contract management. Instead of government providing money for new buildings, it will provide the building itself, procured through the new central body. Centrally procured national contracts should, in theory, offer the best approach to achieving a streamlined procurement process. However, some local authorities will consider this controversial, especially those who consider they already possess the very skills needed to be the strong expert client outlined in the review.
Investment plans
The review envisages that local capital expenditure needs will be established through investment plans agreed locally and approved centrally. These are to be co-ordinated by local authorities. However, the review envisages these investment plans balancing the needs of all schools (including Academies and other non-maintained schools), not just local authority-maintained schools.
The detail is yet to be developed, but whatever criteria are set to assess capital expenditure needs, they must be clear or there is a risk of local disagreements arising from competing interests.
Fast-track procurement
The fast-track procurement piloted in the PFS national framework procurement at Campsmount School in Doncaster has been considered a success.
Although it remains to be seen whether this success can be replicated on a larger scale, the review recommends that, on existing procurements, these principles are adopted straight away.
Streamlining procurement
Contractors will welcome moves to streamline the procurement process and larger contractors will feel confident of making it on to the new national contracts. However, if theses contracts are procured on a national basis, this will cause concern for those (including the government) who want to ensure that SMEs are given a full opportunity to bid for and win public sector work.
The review makes clear that the procurement should be structured to allow SMEs to bid successfully but further detail is required to see how this would be achieved.
Centralised design
From an individual school and Academy perspective, the centralised approach and increased standardisation will mean accepting less direct influence in the end design of their school. Whether fast-track procurement can deliver fit-for-purpose buildings remains to be seen. Ultimately a school or Academy may consider that a basic building in good condition is better than a crumbling building or no building at all.
Direct local procurement
The review leaves the door open for some direct local procurement. Local authorities and other responsible bodies (like Academy trusts and charitable foundations) could “earn the ability to procure autonomously based on their proven delivery capability”. However, there is no detail at this stage on what criteria would be applied to earn this right.
The review refers to larger projects being procured centrally but does not recommend a threshold for deciding which projects fall into this category. Further detail is required on where the threshold will be set to strike the balance between the benefits of central procurement and the requirement for swift local action to meet a particular need.
What next?
Time will tell whether the changes that flow from this review will deliver what they seem to promise. Much depends on their implementation. At this stage, there are many more questions to be answered but the scale of the shift in culture and approach these recommendations herald should not be underestimated.
