Client guide: achieving well designed schools …webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:...4.6 Completion of the Outline Business Case 18 5 Stage Three: OJEC and the

Client Guide Achieving well designed schoolsthrough PFI

cabe

Foreword 21 Introduction 31.1 The scale of investment 31.2 The policy context 41.3 The challenge 41.4 This guide 42 What is good design? 72.1 The principles of good design 72.2 Good design and Best Value 72.3 How to achieve good design 72.4 Good design of schools 82.5 Establishing design standards 83 Stage One: Scoping the project and appraising the options 113.1 Introduction 113.2 Bidding for provisional approval of PFI credits 113.3 Agree objectives and establish benchmarks 113.4 Assess in-house skills and consider outside consultants 123.5 Determine the optimum size of the PFI programme 133.6 Establish the right budget 133.7 Test the Value for Money of PFI 143.8 Manage the programme 144 Stage Two: Brief development and early design work 154.1 Introduction 154.2 Developing the brief and specification 154.3 The importance of initial design work 164.4 Options for further design work 174.5 Selecting designers for initial work 184.6 Completion of the Outline Business Case 185 Stage Three: OJEC and the Output Specification 215.1 Introduction 205.2 Outline planning application 205.3 Consultations 205.4 Output Specification 205.5 Refining the programme 205.6 Going to OJEC 226 Stage Four: Negotiations 256.1 Introduction 256.2 Establishing weighted selection criteria to recognise design quality 256.3 Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) 256.4 Invitations to Submit Outline Proposals (ISOP) 256.5 Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) 266.6 Expert assessment 266.7 Management of consultations 277 Stage Five: Selection of the consortium and delivery of the project 287.1 Introduction 287.2 Achieving maximum quality for a given budget 287.3 Allowing sufficient time 287.4 Design development between Preferred Bidder and Financial Close 297.5 Maintaining quality on-site 297.6 Post project evaluation 298 Conclusions 309 Abbreviations 3110 Useful organisations and publications 32

Contents

I really like the new hall. I can run fast, it is so big.Richard, aged 5, St Botolph’s Church of EnglandPrimary School, Sleaford, Lincolnshire(PFI, completed September 2002)

Education is not just about exam results – the learning environmentshould encourage children to stretch themselves andopen up new horizons. It is important to invest in classrooms to give ourchildren the very best start in life. And that should bethere for everyone.Prime Minister, Tony Blair

Cover

Millennium Primary School, Greenwich Peninsula

LEA/Client: Greenwich / English Partnerships

Architect: Edward Cullinan Architects

Contractor: Wates

Completion date: 2001

Procurement: Traditional

Capital Value: £6.0m

3

1 Introduction

“The PFI process gives the headteacher and teachers – who represent the students – the opportunity to get what the students really need.” Deputy headteacher, Barnhill Community High School, Hillingdon

1.1 The scale of investmentThe UK now has the largest schools capital investmentprogramme for over thirty years, with central governmentinvesting £3.5 billion annually. The investment will result in a large number of schools being modernised, rebuilt orsubstantially refurbished. Much of this work will be deliveredvia the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). This is a massiveopportunity and its legacy will live with us for the next fiftyyears or more.

At the time of publishing this guide, the PFI process hasalready resulted in the completion and occupation of 30schools and an additional 500 schools are in the pipeline,with more to follow. In round terms, about 2 million childrenover the next 25 years will be educated in this generation of new schools. These buildings will give all of these youngpeople fundamental messages about their environment,and the values that their society holds.

What is CABE?CABE is the nation’s champion for better places whichwork better, feel better and are better. CABE is a publicbody funded mainly by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Office of the DeputyPrime Minister (ODPM). CABE’s remit from centralgovernment is to positively impact on the quality of newbuildings and public spaces being delivered in England’stowns and cities.

Part of CABE’s work is to support and advise clientorganisations that have received funding to deliver newprojects – Local Education Authorities delivering schoolsor a NHS Trust delivering a new hospital, for instance. We also review the design quality of significant projects,work closely with central government departments on theirfunding programmes, deliver research, run an educationprogramme related to children’s awareness of their builtenvironment and a series of campaigns aimed at thegeneral public.

For more information go to www.cabe.org.ukBox 1

What is the Better Public Building Initiative?Better Public Buildings is a campaign led by the PrimeMinister which aims to ensure that the £34.4 billion annualinvestment in public buildings, (schools, nurseries,hospitals, housing), committed by this government resultsin high quality buildings. At the outset of the campaign thePrime Minister has demanded a step-change in the qualityof public buildings and CABE has been charged withhelping to deliver this. As part of the process eachgovernment department has prepared an Action Planoutlining how they are going to deliver better publicbuildings. The Prime Minister’s Award for Better PublicBuildings is given annually.

“I am determined that this additional money should be wellspent, leaving behind a legacy of high quality buildings thatcan match the best of what we inherited from theVictorians and other past generations. And I amdetermined that good design should not be confined tohigh profile buildings in the big cities: all of the users forpublic services, wherever they are, should be able tobenefit from better design” Foreword by the Prime Minster,Tony Blair ‘Better Public Buildings, A proud legacy for theFuture’, HM Government, 2000.

For more information go towww.betterpublicbuildings.gov.ukBox 2

2

Foreword

CABE believes that good design isfundamental to higher quality publicbuildings and represents true value for money. Good design improves ourenjoyment of places and the quality oftime we spend there. Where better tosignal a commitment to quality designof public buildings than in our schools,the places where our children learnand grow up?

CABE has taken a particular interestin the design of schools because weare in the early stages of the biggestschool construction programme forover thirty years. Lack of recentinvestment has led to many schoolsdegenerating into environments thatfall well short of even modestexpectations. This will not be ‘truevalue for money’ when our researchhas shown that well designed schoolsdirectly affect the quality of thelearning environment and improvepupil performance and staff morale,help to deliver modern curricula andenhance the standing of a schoolwithin its community.

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) isone of the main mechanisms throughwhich investment in new schools willbe channelled. It is particularlyimportant because it will deliver the majority of new or substantially

refurbished schools that are includedin current spending plans. When PFIwas launched in 1992 it was with theclear aim of delivering higher qualityand cost-effective public services. Inthe intervening years PFI has been putto the test with many public agenciesgetting to grips with the particularitiesof the process and the product of PFI.

The commitment to new PFI schoolsmay rise to over £1 billion per year inthe next spending round and we arenow seeing a rapidly increasingnumber of PFI schools coming intooperation. It is therefore an opportunetime to consider what lessons wehave learnt about PFI from earlyprojects and how we can apply thisknowledge to ensure that the schoolsdelivered through PFI over the comingyears meet high design standards.

Anybody who has been involved withPFI projects will recognise that theyare complex and bring together awide range of issues that are generallyseparated in more traditional methodsof procurement. We believe thatdesign quality will become anincreasingly important issue and wehope that this guide will be valuable to those who care about the legacy of school buildings that we will beleaving for future generations.

This guide uses CABE’s experienceand knowledge of best practice to help the main stakeholders,particularly the client, private sectorpartners and the school community,achieve well-designed, new andrefurbished schools through PFI. Thisguide has been developed as a resultof eighteen months’ work in the fieldand we believe that its implementationwill lead to significant improvements.With time we expect to bring forwardfurther recommendations on otherimportant issues and this willcomplement this guidance. We hopethat we will begin to see PFI projectsthat can be recognised for designexcellence and we believe that this is achievable. We look forward to receiving feedback that can help to further develop our thinking.

Richard Feilden OBECABE Commissioner

4

1.2 The policy contextThe thinking about what should be achieved with new and refurbished schools has been developed through theDfES’s ‘Schools for the Future: Building Bulletin 95’. Therehave also been a number of initiatives encouraging localeducation authorities and designers to think afresh aboutwhat types of internal and external spaces are wanted in schools to support teachers and pupils, for exampleClassrooms of the Future and Spaces for Sports and Artsin Primary Schools.

DfES is also in the process of reviewing area standards for schools, currently embodied in ‘Building Bulletin 82’.The review will provide a new method for calculating howmuch space should be provided in a school (classrooms,corridors, etc), for the number of pupils that have to becatered for. It is likely to result in an increase in theminimum amount of space needed, and also to apply amore logical method of calculating the space requirements.

1.3 The challengeCombined with the Prime Minister’s Better Public Buildingscampaign, education policy direction is challenging thequality of schools being delivered.

For PFI meeting this challenge will require:the DfES to put in place appropriate policy direction,support and reviewing mechanisms to ensure designquality and, to this end, CABE and DfES are workingtogetherclients (LEAs and head teachers) to establish theappropriate budgets, specify and demand quality andinnovation and check to see that it is being deliveredprivate sector providers to think about their approach todesign quality and to be prepared to be judged on theinnovation and quality of the buildings they are offering.

CABE’s views of the quality of schools being deliveredthrough PFI have been stated previously and, in the besttradition of end-of-term reports, they can be summarisedas ‘showing potential – but must try harder’. What isimportant is that the PFI process itself does not detractfrom the quality of the product: the school building andgrounds. For example, for many schools any investment in the buildings they use is very welcome and there cantherefore be a tendency for expectations relating to thequality of the new school building or refurbishedclassrooms to be too low.

On a more positive note, there are examples of gooddesign in PFI schools and they could be the focus, in order to raise aspirations and expectations for design.

PFI is no different to other procurement routes in thatquality and innovation in design depends on the calibre and competence of the client body to demand the bestand ensure the process encourages its delivery. Where PFIdoes differ is in its complexity. The client therefore needs to be much more clued-up and organised to manage theprocess, particularly to ensure well-designed buildings asthe outcome. In addition, the process of PFI moves awayfrom the typical client-design team relationship, whichmeans the client has less direct design support and needs to be a more autonomous judge of design quality.

1.4 This guideThe guide is aimed at the clients and providers of new andrefurbished buildings, specifically LEAs (Local EducationAuthorities), schools and private sector providers involvedin PFI projects.

It follows the key stages in the PFI process. It is recognisedthat the readers of the guide will have varying levels ofknowledge about the PFI process and, not least, the jargonused. For some the guide will cover very familiar territoryand for others it will be new ground. However, it is hopedthat it provides a new perspective and insights for allreaders on how to deliver design quality through PFI.

Introduction

Middle and overleaf

Great Notley Primary School

LEA/Client: Essex County Council

Architect: Allford Hall Monaghan Morris

Contractor: Jackson Building




Below right

Whiteley Primary School, Fareham

LEA/Client: Hampshire County Council

Architect: HCC Architecture and Design Unit

Contractor: Ballast (phase 1), Brazier (phase 2)

Completion Date: 2001



Above right

Owler Brook NI School

LEA/Client: Sheffield Local Education Authority

Architect: GHML

Contractor: Interserve


Procurement: PFI

PFI Credits: £45.0m (6 schools)

Below left

Jubilee School, Tulse Hill

LEA/Client: London Borough of Lambeth

Architect: Allford Hall Monaghan Morris

Contractor: Ballast Construction South East

Completion Date: 2002



7

2 What is good design?

2.1 The principles of good designGood design is not primarily a question of style and taste. It involves adhering to a set of time honoured, objectiveprinciples that determine whether or not a building workswell for all users and the community.

Good design is achieved when the following elements areaddressed positively: how a building functions, the qualityof the building, its environmental efficiency, its contributionto the surrounding context and its attractiveness (see Box 3).

Principles of good designFunctionality in use: Is the building fit for purpose, or even better, does it use know-how and innovation to provide business and social value? Does it optimise the operational cost of core services and, in particular, the productivity of staff?Build quality: Is the building built on whole life costprinciples – is it built to last and easy to maintain? Efficiency and sustainability: Is the building designed in a way that it will be completed on (or before) time, to budget and to specification? Is the buildingenvironmentally efficient, in terms of where it is located, how it has been constructed and how it will be used?Designing in context: Is the building respectful of itscontext, strengthening the identity of the neighbourhood in its landscape? The Government’s guidance on urban and rural design, ‘By Design’ states that any newdevelopment should accord with the following principles –character, continuity and enclosure, quality of public space, ease of movement, legibility, adaptability and, where appropriate, diversity of use. Aesthetic quality: The procurer may have architecturalrequirements that will form an essential element of thedesign process. These could include the need fordistinguished architecture, or the need for a building to harmonise with other existing buildings.

For a more detailed description of how to assess quality of design, CABE’s publication, ‘Design Review’ is availablefrom www.cabe.org.ukBox 3

2.2 Good design and Best ValueGood design is inherently part of Best Value as publicsector clients seek to balance quality and cost, rather than merely taking the lowest cost option. This is exploredfurther in the points below.

The starting point is that good design adds value.Research from the UK and abroad shows the linkbetween design quality and enhanced educationattainment. A summary of the research is given in the CABE publication ‘The Value of Good Design’Good design results from a creative process that shouldlead to simplification and, as a result, savings in whole lifecosts. It does not consist of using expensive materials fortheir own sake or of providing lavish areas and volumes The process by which to attain good design also aims to take advantage of innovation, in particular in terms of standardised products and manufacturing processeswhich can bring cost savings and greater efficiencyduring the construction process. This efficiency is oftenachieved through the early involvement of the supply sidein the design process (i.e. builders, materials suppliersand manufacturers), which can have a positive impact on the design A good design team will ensure that capital costs are competitive, and that savings can be achieved on running costs Through innovation, it can also give the facility acompetitive advantage in attracting both users and staff Good design can also contribute to wider policyobjectives, such as those relating to the protection of the environment, without compromising the procurementpolicy objective of optimum combinations of whole lifecosts and quality to meet users' requirements.

2.3 How to achieve good designIn order to achieve good design, it is necessary to have:

an end-user who knows what they want in terms offunctional requirements and qualitya thorough brief which sets out these requirementsa strong competitive process which engages strong biddersproviders (builders and managers) who will respond to a brief and rise to the challenge of design qualitydesigners who can engage in a challenging and constructive dialogue with both the public sector procurer, end-users and the supply andmanufacturing basea sufficiently robust timetable to achieve a good solution.

8

2.4 Good design of schoolsCABE has prepared a list of key points for good schooldesign (see Box 4). In PFI documentation this list can be used to describe the broader outputs required frombidders, and should be used as a reference pointthroughout the procurement process. Checklists have anobvious value, but it should be recognised that they do notin themselves lead to good design, which is the result of a combination of skills and inspiration.

However, it is recommended that LEAs, in consultation withschools, use this list to establish their key expectations fortheir PFI projects. It could be used to communicate thedesign quality objectives in briefing material to biddingconsortia and be used as a reference point throughout theprocurement process. Clients should also refer to the DfES‘Schools for the Future: Building Bulletin 95’ for much moredetailed guidance.

10 key points for a good design of a school

1 Good clear organisation, an easily legible plan, and full accessibility

2 Spaces that are well proportioned, efficient, fit forpurpose and meet the needs of the curriculum

3 Circulation that is well organised, and sufficientlygenerous

4 Good environmental conditions throughout, includingappropriate levels of natural light and ventilation

5 Attractiveness in design, comparable to that found in other quality public buildings, to inspire pupils, staff and parents

6 Good use of the site, and public presence as a civicbuilding wherever possible to engender local pride

7 Attractive external spaces with a good relationship to internal spaces and offering appropriate security and a variety of different settings

8 A layout that encourages broad community access and use out of hours, where appropriate

9 Robust materials that are attractive, that will weatherand wear well and that are environmentally friendly

10 Flexible design that will facilitate changes in policy andtechnology and which allows expansion or contraction in the future, where appropriate

Box 4

2.5 Establishing design standardsThroughout the PFI process, there will be various stages at which design quality will be discussed, specified,evaluated and checked. This will relate to things that can be scientifically measured eg the level of daylight in a classroom or more subjective aspects eg theattractiveness of the building. At the outset of the projectthere are many factors to be considered and manyindividual views to be taken into account, not least theviews and aspirations of the school community. Onceestablished these objectives will be the reference pointduring the competitive tendering process and, ultimately, should be used to test the success of thebuilding once it is occupied and in use (as part of a postoccupancy evaluation).

To assist in this process of setting objectives relating todesign quality, the Construction Industry Council (CIC), with support from CABE, has developed Design QualityIndicators (DQIs). The indicators are set out on aquestionnaire that can be completed by a range ofstakeholders. The results of all the completedquestionnaires are then evaluated to establish the relativeweighting placed on different aspects of design. A DQIToolkit is already being used by NHS Estates and the CICmodel is available for use. Further information is available at www.dqi.org.uk

What is good design?

Above right

John Cabot CTC, Kingswood, Bristol

LEA/Client: John Cabot CTC

Architect: Feilden Clegg Bradley

Contractor: Sir Robert McAlpine




Middle

Stephen Hawking School, Brunton Wharf

LEA/Client: London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Architect: Haverstock Associates

Contractor: Crispin & Borst




Below right

Royal Latin School, Buckingham

LEA/Client: Buckinghamshire County Council

Architect: Greenhill Jenner Architects

Contractor: C Miskin & Sons Ltd




Below left (top and bottom)

Balfron High School, West Stirlingshire

LEA/Client: Stirling Council

Architect: Boswell, Mitchell & Johnston

Contractor: Jarvis


Procurement: PFI

PFI Credits: £15.0m

Overleaf

Tanbridge House School, Horsham

LEA/Client: West Sussex County Council

Architect: architecture plb

Contractor: Taylor Woodrow (Southern)




11

3 Stage One: Scoping the project and appraising the options

3.1 IntroductionPrior to embarking on a PFI project, the LEA will need toestablish the nature and scale of what is needed. This willbe based on a consideration of the need for improvementsin existing schools, or the need for new facilities and howmuch funding is available compared to the funding required.The LEA’s Asset Management Plan (AMP) will inform muchof this early thinking. The AMP will include a review of theLEA’s stock of school buildings in terms of condition,suitability and sufficiency needs. The local EducationDevelopment Plan (EDP) should also set out the educationneed. This process is likely to set the shape and broadparameters for the PFI project.

This process will have taken place prior to the LEA gaining approval for any PFI credits from DfES. Much of this early work will inform the preparation of the subsequentexpression of interest to DfES for the PFI project (see section 3.2).

As with any building project, the early stages are vital asmost value can be added at the start of the procurementprocess. In PFI the aspiration for quality needs to beestablished at the outset and followed through allsubsequent stages of the process.

3.2 Bidding for provisional approval of PFI creditsThe information that LEAs are required to submit to DfES togain a provisional allocation of PFI credits is relatively limited.The information submitted is referred to as an expression ofinterest. This document presents the case for funding andis normally no more than 12 pages long with appendices.Previously LEAs had to prepare an Outline Business Case at this early stage. In the current system, once an LEA hasbeen given provisional approval, based on the expressionof interest, they are then asked to prepare their OutlineBusiness Case (OBC). The expression of interest is similarto the preparation of the stage referred to as StrategicOutline Case (SOC) in PFI jargon.

This early stage is an opportune time to:set and test objectives establish the potential funding from DfES, using the PFI Toolkit supplied by DfES, and test the budgettest the benefits that PFI could bring in comparison to a more traditional procurement (through the preparationof a Public Sector Comparator (PSC)) map out the existing skills and resources available tomanage the process and the support and inputs that will required to be an effective clienthave early discussions and input from the widercommunity.

The setting of objectives is vitally important as the scale and duration of the PFI competitive process is lengthy and committing to a project without clear objectives is a recipe for delay, changes, disillusionment and potentialproject failure.

Providing sufficient time and resources for strategic thinkingwill also pay dividends in the long run. It becomesincreasingly difficult to make strategic changes torequirements after the confirmation of PFI credits by theDfES or the approval of the Outline Business Case (OBC).

There is a need to get organised and use the time before PFI credits are allocated. The following sectionsoutline some of the fundamental issues to be addressed at this stage.

3.3 Agree objectives and establish benchmarksAn informed client is critical to the success of any project.Client LEAs should:

Visit LEAs that have completed a PFI project and seeother well-designed schoolsJudge the results and find out what the LEA would nowimprove in their new schools or in the processStudy the limitations of the proposed sites and consultthe wider community to inform this processConsider how their project might improve on othercompleted projects and set new best practice Read around the subject and create a reference library forthe project. These documents plus selected visits shouldhelp the project team establish desirable and non-desirable elements for the schools. The list of publicationsat the back of this report should be a good starting point.

The client should summarise objectives and establish somebenchmarks of quality, noting what is essential and whatwill be unacceptable in the schools being developed. Thiswill be an invaluable base for the brief and the evaluation ofschemes put forward during the competitive process.

1312

3.5 Determine the optimum size of the PFI programmeIn areas where accommodation problems are affectingmany existing schools, there will be a desire to address the problems rapidly and simultaneously. This results inLEAs putting together packages of schools as part of thePFI programme. These packages or grouped schools aregenerally put together for economy and ease ofprocurement or for educational/facilities managementreasons. The number of schools being put forward by LEAs into packages is increasing. The average package is around 9 schools, but there are also LEAs who areputting forward packages of over 50 schools. Packagescan also include different types of school: secondary,primary and nursery, and different scales of investment from refurbishment or extensions to new build. LEAs needto think carefully about the impact of grouping schools, for example on the amount of work required up front andduring the negotiation process.

Delivering PFI projects that involve multiple buildings,locations, communities, built contexts and user groupsobviously presents particular issues in the PFI tenderingprocess. The amount of work required by LEAs in preparingfor the PFI tendering process will increase with the numberof schools in the package. The LEA will have to payparticular attention to how they communicate theirexpectations on design quality. In considering the numberof schools to be included in a package, LEAs shouldtherefore consider:

the nature and level of detail that should be included in any specifications for individual schools, in order toensure appropriate design quality and innovation for the individual schoolsthe design time that consortia will have to put into theprocess to ensure design quality is not jeopardised on individual projectsthe consultation that is possible with the school’s end users i.e. teachers and pupilsthe resources that the LEA will have to put into thepreparation of the OBC and ITN document to ensuredesign quality.

Therefore the number of schools that LEAs include inproposed PFI projects, and the implications, should becarefully considered. In addition, LEAs may want toconsider having a rolling programme, with projects beingundertaken on a sequential basis. This could lead togreater attention being given to individual projects fromboth clients, the PFI bidders and their designers, and

provide the opportunity to learn from earlier projects andinform subsequent schemes. If LEAs would like to considerthis possibility they should discuss it with DfES.

When setting out the timetable for the PFI prioritisationprocess, it is essential that enough time is given to ensuringthat bidding consortia and their design teams developdesigns, test them and consult with end users.

LEAs should ensure that the appropriate attention has beenpaid to each individual project and this may be greatlyassisted by the appointment of more than one architect by the consortia. This can help reflect the diversity that can occur between the schools that make up the package– repairs to existing buildings, new build or other specialspaces like sport facilities – and also create manageableworkloads for the professionals involved so that designdoes not get skimped and quality suffer. The subdivision of the design work in this way could also open the PFImarket to smaller design firms, which in turn wouldencourage more innovative practice.

3.6 Establish the right budget“It is essential that the PFI/PPP procurement competitionbe underpinned by realistic affordability assumptions. As has been seen in the past, good design can besacrificed as bidders desperately seek to fit their costswithin a budget that was unrealistic in terms of the initialspecifications.” Treasury Taskforce Technical Guidance Note 7: ‘How to achieve design quality in PFI/PPP projects’.

The funding from DfES for the PFI project is set using thePFI Toolkit provided by DfES. The Toolkit’s formatdetermines the PFI credits that can be allocated by DfES to an LEA. Often LEAs will make contributions to the costof the project from other sources, over and above PFIcredits, to cover the costs of preparatory work for the PFItendering process and, potentially, to fund the later stagesof service delivery.

LEAs should note that the demand for PFI credits is high,and therefore the prioritisation process may lead to delaysor unfulfilled expectations. It is therefore important for LEAs to consider carefully the amount of work that shouldbe done in advance of DfES confirming that PFI credits are available.

Stage One: Scoping the project and appraising the options

3.4 Assess in-house skills and consider outside consultantsBefore any client body undertakes initial analysis of abuilding programme, they need to test their own capacityand skills base and, where required, recruit the necessaryskills. Experience to date suggests that LEAs tend to takeon external financial and legal advice but are often seriouslyunder-represented by building professionals, particularlythose who can advise on design quality. If an LEA does nothave this expertise, it will be more difficult to manage thecompetitive process and ensure that buildings of theappropriate quality result. It is very important that the clientobtains appropriate design advice right at the start of theprocess; this is likely to include people who can advise onarchitecture and service engineering.

To assist in securing better design, it is suggested thatLEAs identify and properly resource people to fulfil the rolesof design champion and design advisor.

A design champion LEAs should consider appointing a design champion,preferably a senior elected member or a senior officerwithin the authority. The design champion should havedirect access to the political decision making process.Their remit is to promote design issues within the contextof the authority’s wider policies on design, creativity,inclusion and urban regeneration. LEAs need to identifythis individual from the start of the process and theyshould be trusted and empowered to bring up issuesregarding design throughout the process. This role is notfor status but for action. If the appropriate skills do notexist within the client organisation, it may be necessary toappoint someone to fulfil this role. An internal person ishowever much preferred as they have the potential to have a long-term impact on the LEA’s strategic thinking.

Their job will be to:Provide leadership, to generate enthusiasm for andcommitment to design quality and provide a point ofcontact for external bodiesPromote the benefits of good design and negotiate thenecessary funding to achieve itCo-ordinate effort, promoting cooperation and joint action across an organisationEnsure the process promotes the delivery of quality andinnovation and has the authority to highlight when designquality is being compromised to an unacceptable level.

For more information on this role, see the CABEpublication ‘Better Civic Buildings and Spaces’ available at www.cabe.org.ukBox 5

A design advisorA strong and expert executive client team is of fundamentalimportance in achieving quality. The decision makers and all consultees should be mapped out early and a clear hierarchy, accepted by all stakeholders, needs to be determined as to how decisions will be made. It isrecommended that the client establishes whether the key decision makers have the skills to judge quality.

PFI changes the traditional relationship of support betweenclient and design team, with the design team working forthe private sector provider and not the end-user or client.Most LEAs will benefit significantly from the appointment ofa design advisor, either someone who is in-house or aconsultant. They will assist the LEA and fulfil a moreindependent role as judge of design quality. The advisorshould be an experienced professional, most likely anarchitect, able to provide expert advice on the quality ofschemes that are being put forward. The client advisor, asa member of the client team and jointly with the client, will:

Consult stakeholders and assist in identifying key design issuesPromote awareness of design quality amongstakeholders through visits to other projects, displays,reference material etcAdvise on the process from the point of view of achievingdesign qualityAssist with initial feasibilities and option appraisal. Thiswork may be done by others, in which case the designadvisor’s role would be to manage this processIdentify key issues for inclusion in the output specification,Advise on assessment criteria and weightingsAdvise the client on bidders’ proposalsBe aware of best practice in procurement via theprinciples of Rethinking Construction.

Finally, it may be appropriate to retain the design advisoruntil the completion of the project, to ensure that the output specification and reference models are being met at all stages. However, in the PFI process the client doesnot have the same instructing role as in traditionalprocurement so once the Preferred Bidder is appointed the design advisor would be checking the PreferredBidder’s information. Box 6

1514

4 Stage Two: Brief development and early design work

“It is often at the design stage that most can be done tomaximise value” National Audit Office, ‘ModernisingConstruction’, 2001

4.1 IntroductionThe Outline Business Case (OBC) is when the clientconsolidates the brief and business case. OBC is thedocument that is submitted to the DfES and forms the basison which it approves PFI Credits. Once approved by DfES,the OBC goes to the Project Review Group (PRG), a cross-departmental body, for formal approval.

It is essential that client objectives are clearly defined in orderto obtain responses from providers that reach an acceptablethreshold in design terms but also enable the responses to bereadily compared. It is generally accepted within PFI that initialdesign work is needed to inform the brief, to test options andto identify risks. This section therefore emphasises the valueof doing design work early in the process and defines thetype and scope of design work required.

The following sections presume that the groundworkrecommended during the expression of interest (or SOC)has already been undertaken (see section 3.2).

4.2 Developing the brief and specificationA clear design brief is essential regardless of procurementmethod, and PFI is no exception. The school’s end usersand stakeholders will not get what they want unless theirrequirements are identified and clearly set out. This is anormal part of any school design development process but becomes absolutely critical in PFI, due to the nature of the PFI bidding process and the fact the designapproach the consortia adopt at the earliest stages in thebidding process can often remain relatively fixed. Ensuringthat the consortium’s designers have sufficient dialoguewith the end users can also present a particular challenge,which can be affected by the number of schools within the PFI package.

The development of the brief involves event stages. It begins with an outline brief at expression of interest (or SOC) stage. This is developed by the use of feasibilitystudies and option appraisals that test the budget and feedinto the OBC. The brief should be extensive and covercontext, access, room sizes, dimensions, materials,fixtures, fittings, services etc. Some LEAs are choosing to specify the furniture, fittings and equipment (FF&E),following experience of variable quality in the early PFIschemes, and this option should be considered.

Typical contents for an initial briefThe following list provides some headings for the contentsof a PFI design brief, although the list is not necessarilyexhaustive. The client understanding or aspirations inrelation to these issues can be expanded in feasibility work. 1 Aspirations and project objectives – including specific

design aspirations2 The client team, related decision-making structure and

involvement of other stakeholders3 Site information – possibly including surveys4 The functional content and key relationships in

the buildings5 The possible changes in functional requirements of the

building over time and need for flexibility6 The environmental qualities of the building – mechanical

and electrical engineering aspects7 Structural issues with the site and existing or new

buildings – structural engineering aspects8 Budget constraints (including furniture, fittings and

equipment (FF&E)9 Timetable for delivering the project – programme and

project management10 Specialist inputs – lighting, acoustics, catering11 Statutory authorities – eg local planning authority

requirements12 Aspirations in relation to sustainability – eg green

travel plans and energy efficiency13 The opportunities for the integration of the design and

construction process and other technical innovation –embodied in the principles of Rethinking Construction

Box 7

It is also preferable at this stage to anticipate and prepare for the next PFI stage, which will require a Pre-QualificationQuestionnaire (PQQ), Preliminary Information Memorandum(PIM) and Output Specification (OS). Ultimately, it will be thequality of the Output Specification that will determine thequality of the consortium’s response. The quality of OutputSpecifications for schools is currently very variable in terms ofdesign requirements and aspirations. Helpful guidance existsin the 4ps publication ‘Output Specifications for PFI Projects:A 4ps guide for schools’ available from www.4ps.co.uk

Managing risk is key to PFI, so it is recommended that LEAscompile the hard and soft facts about their existing buildingsand sites before going to the market. With any project therewill be risks associated with the specifics of each site and,unless these have been identified in advance, they couldattract a cost premium during the bidding.

Stage One: Scoping the project and appraising the options

As with any funding application, it will be important for the client to test the resulting budget to ensure that it issufficient to enable the scale and quality of buildingsrequired. There are some concerns that budgets currentlybeing applied to PFI projects are not sufficient to ensuredesign quality and that they have not been robustly tested.The LEA should test budgets through the preparation ofsite-specific feasibility studies and design option appraisals.There is also a risk that budgets might be stretched duringthe course of the PFI process, as LEAs increase thespecification, but not the budget, or bidders offer morefacilities (eg an extra sports hall) to the detriment of theoverall quality of the buildings.

There is the potential for LEAs to consider bolstering thefunding available from PFI credits through other sources, forexample the direct formulaic funding given to LEAs throughthe Asset Management Plan (AMP) process. Whateversources of funding are used, it is important that LEAs areclear about the level of funds available for the project fromthe outset.

3.7 Test the value for money of PFI The Public Sector Comparator (PSC) is an important testfor the project budget. The PSC is a financial modelprepared by the client that establishes how much it wouldcost to supply the buildings and services being specifiedthrough a non-PFI procurement route. The project can onlygo ahead if the PSC demonstrates that the PFI processpresents better value for money than the PSC.

The PSC is normally prepared as part of the OutlineBusiness Case, but it can impact on the budget settingprocess. In particular, there are concerns that there can be an over-simplistic approach to setting the PSC with areliance on desktop exercises, involving hypotheticalfinancial modelling. Also, that the PSC is based on historicfigures, meaning that innovation is hampered by a budgetconstructed from an ‘average’ of the past, rather than theneeds and aspirations of the future.

There is therefore a risk that, in setting the PSC, little account is taken of the impact of design quality onissues of environmental sustainability or social benefits. This is recognised in the Treasury’s guidelines as set out in OGC PFI Policy Statement No. 2, “…other factors,notably risk transfer, service quality and wider policyobjectives are less easy to quantify and may not be fullyreflected in the comparator”.

Therefore, to make PFI work at its best, it is fundamentalthat the client puts a value on the added benefits of designquality. This includes areas where there is a directeconomic impact on a school, for example staff recruitmentand retention and community use. Budgets should alsofactor in and promote the social value of design, such asthe impact on educational achievement and civic pride.

3.8 Manage the programmePFI as a form of procurement has been successful in delivering more projects on time and to budget thanconventional procurement. However, the preparatory andbidding stages of the process can currently extend over 2 years and the process will therefore require significantcommitment and resources from the client, bidders andend users. There are initiatives underway to help andsupport LEAs during these early stages of the process, for example 4ps’ work with the LEA PFI Networks. There isnow also standard documentation, and support is providedby CABE and DfES through Project Enabling Teams (PET).

It is difficult to establish a standard timetable for PFIprojects, due to variations in project complexity and size. It is therefore strongly recommended that LEAs take time todevelop a plan of work at the earliest stage to map out thephases of PFI procurement and identify against each phasethe opportunities where design can be influenced. Thisprogramme will need to ensure that sufficient time is givento enable the client to prepare the specification and otherreference material, and for the consortia’s design teams tohave sufficient time for design.

This will require LEAs to consider how to tackle the factthat the design process within PFI often starts very late, is progressed in a stop-start manner and is insufficient. This can present problems for the design practicesengaged by consortia. Design is an iterative process and it is essential that sufficient time is allowed to ensure aproper design process. The programme should also reflecthow much time the LEA will require to get informationready, carry out testing and bring in stakeholders.

16

Initial work should be undertaken to feed into adevelopment and planning brief for the individual sites. This should include the following:

Sustainability brief (eg travel, energy usage, buildingmaterial and component selection)Strategic issues development plan (for resolvingsequence of thought – eg access, decant, phasing etc.)Planning guidance brief prepared by the PlanningAuthority. (An outline planning consent forfeasibility/reference schemes is an alternative.)

‘The Architect’s Plan of Work’, RIBA Publications, is auseful guide to any client embarking on design work. Box 9 provides a brief summary of the scope of work in initial design stages.

Initial design work: understanding key stagesThe RIBA has identified key Work Stages for the process of the design, construction and commissioning of abuilding. Typically the Stages run from A to M, the earlyStages A–C are as follows:

RIBA Stage A: AppraisalIdentification of client’s requirements and of possibleconstraints on development. Preparation of studies oroptions to enable the client to decide whether to proceedand to select the probable procurement method.

RIBA Stage B: Strategic BriefingPreparation of strategic brief by or on behalf of the clientconfirming key requirements and constraints. Identificationof procedures, organisational structure and range ofconsultants to be engaged for the project.

RIBA Stage C: Outline ProposalsCommence development of strategic brief into full projectbrief. Preparation of Outline Proposals by the whole design team and estimate of cost. Details developedgenerally sufficient to submit Outline Planning Application.

The 4ps document ‘Achieving quality in local authority PFI building projects’ provides a useful comparison of the RIBA Work Stages and the PFI process.Box 9

4.4 Options for further design workFor some projects there will be advantages in extending the initial design work beyond feasibility studies (see section4.3). This will entail the development of what is referred toas exemplar designs or projects. The ‘exemplar’ typicallyextends the design development to part way through or to the completion of RIBA Stage C, Outline Design. Itestablishes a co-ordinated layout for the development, or the design of a specific part of a school – for instance, a new science wing or sports hall.

The exemplar design work which defines a particularsolution, is also occasionally called a reference project. This can cause some confusion, as in early PFI texts thereference project relates to work done to inform the PublicSector Comparator (PSC), which was primarily financialmodelling. However, PFI clients, particularly in hospitals, are increasingly extending the amount of work carried outon design in the early stages. There are instances were this work is called a ‘reference project’. They extend toestablishing a scheme which is based on the outputspecification and can be used to test the budget.

Advantages and disadvantages of this approach are set outin Box 10. The extent and depth of further design work thatshould be undertaken will depend on circumstances andthe clients’ objectives. However, the design work is aboutsetting standards. It is not about forming a prescriptivedesign, but about establishing a baseline for innovation and design quality, for bidders to improve upon. Earlydesign work does not mean that there will be a transfer of risk back to the client.

It may be preferable to prepare exemplar designs (or reference projects) for distinct areas in a school. This might be where the brief needs to be explored andexplained in more detail (eg classroom size and layout),where particular design ideas are required to be pursued(eg circulation spaces, day lighting), and where buildingforms and materials need to be more prescriptive than canbe achieved solely by the specification. This may be mostappropriate in large packaged or grouped schools wherethe brief and the design issues are similar across a numberof schools – eg the addition of classrooms to primary orsecondary schools affected by closure of middle schoolsunder an Age of Transfer programme.

With any design work, it is worth including a stage of post-design analysis to extract the general issues, which arecritical in terms of relationships, site access or details. Thiswill help to inform the brief, which should be made availableto bidding consortia.

The hard issues include a range of very specific informationlike a digital survey (to include levels and trees),photographs, site ownership and restrictive covenants,boundary conditions (party walls, rights of light), site accessissues and the site's development history.

The softer issues (regeneration considerations, preferredaccess by the community, distant views, urban designstrategy) may take longer to assess and communicate but can be teased out using a feasibility study.

Issues to think about when preparing the briefThe brief will form the basis for the preparation of theOutput Specification, which (after the PQQ) is a key signal of quality to bidding consortia The brief should identify all those areas where the designadvisors and the client want to set standards ofperformance, appearance and design quality or specifyparticular items which must be providedThe use of drawings and photographs in thespecification, as well as words, should be encouragedand it should be anticipated that preliminary design workundertaken on behalf of the client will be communicatedto potential service providers. Client-provided drawingsshould have accompanying disclaimers to avoid anyretained risk on designAll disciplines and all stakeholders will need to contributeto this document The brief is an internal document which is used togenerate the Output Specification, which will become a contractual documentIf it is not complete, is unclear or does not represent the client’s wishes, then there will be problems and the school will lose outDecisions can be informed by discussions with other LEAsto determine the items that may have been overlooked There is valuable feedback available through 4ps andfrom the national network meetings of LEAs in previousand current rounds.

Box 8

4.3 The importance of initial design work There are various outputs relating to the client’s initialthinking about design, which are likely to be preparedsequentially:

Early feasibility studies, which are essentialSurvey workDevelopment and planning briefExemplar projects (see section 4.4).

All clients should undertake some initial design work asearly as possible within the process. The lack of investmentin initial design to test budgets and inform the OutputSpecification is the most common risk to quality of designin schools. A well-developed brief, with communityconsensus, is essential to better design, and will encouragerather than restrict the quality and innovation of biddingconsortia later down the line. The typical cost ofundertaking initial work will be in the range of half of oneper cent of the project cost for a developed design ortypically on a scale of £20,000 to £60,000 for a secondaryschool (and less for a primary school). The work could varyfrom establishing general urban design principles for thesite to a more developed reference scheme for key areas of the school. This investment will significantly improve theclient’s capacity, the overall delivery of the project and thequality of the final output. The sections below highlightsome of the initial work that LEAs should be commissioning.

A feasibility study should be undertaken for all projects tocover the main issues such as siting, massing and access,and to test the brief for each site. Further design work canalso be commissioned (see section 4.4). The building users(teachers, children and community) should be consulted onaspects of the design work. This work will provide a usefullearning curve for clients new to the PFI process.

Once the initial work has been undertaken it is importantthat clients use it to test their assumptions about thebudget and the scale of the PFI programme, to ensure thatthe scheme is deliverable to the appropriate quality.

The LEA should consider commissioning survey workto inform the brief and to avoid wastage with individualconsortia otherwise commissioning replica work. It will beimportant to ensure that the consortia take on the risk ofusing the outputs from surveys. This work will include thefollowing:

Topographical survey – required for planning application preparationGeotechnical survey – to achieve optimum risk transfer. If the location of the building on a site is open then adesktop study should suffice.Desktop archaeological survey – to achieve optimum risk transferTraffic studies to determine accessExisting landscape and ecological surveyMeasured survey of buildings to be retainedDeleterious materials survey

Stage Two: Brief development and early design work

17

18

4.5 Selecting designers for initial workLEAs should ensure that the best possible design firms are appointed to do the initial design work as this sets thestandard for the schools. Design teams should be carefullychosen for their experience and reputation for quality, in addition to an ability to engage the school and widercommunity, as poor initial design could be unhelpful oreven negative. Where in-house designers exist theirinvolvement in this part of the process should be considered.But it is recognised that the capacity and experience ofmany in-house teams varies widely and in many instancesit will be appropriate to get additional support.

If this issue is considered early enough, it is possible to goto a wider market for the selection of design teams byOJEC advertisement and select them through a competitiveprocess. The LEA design advisor can assist in this process.Alternatively, it is possible to select from a prepared shortlistvia a competitive interview process, with the assistance of adesign advisor.

Selection criteria and weightings should be defined inadvance and issued to the short-listed teams beforeinterview. The client may choose to define the scope of thisdesign exercise very precisely, setting out deliverables andprogramme of consultations so that the design teams canoffer a price tender. Defining the scope requires some skillas a client so an alternative is to select on the basis of afixed fee against which teams compete and they define the level of service.

Because the design team used for this stage is unlikely to be the design team that sees the project through tocompletion as part of the winning consortium, it isrecommended that they are offered some clear incentives.

The selection process should be documented andfeedback provided, both critical and encouraging, to allparticipants so that firms are willing to engage with otherLEAs later on.

4.6 Completion of the Outline Business CaseInitial design work should inform the Outline Business Caseand help the client state their design expectations. Thesecan be backed up with specific selection criteria for theshort-listing of consortia. For instance, the client caninclude particular expectations such as the quality of thedesign team being offered by the consortia and theweightings this will be given.

The LEAs design adviser should assist with thedevelopment of specific sections for the OBC. At this earlystage it would also be useful to establish thresholds thatmust be achieved by all short listed consortia, relating toissues of design quality.

The OBC should include statements setting outexpectations in relation to design quality, for example:

“Our objective is to achieve the highest possiblestandards of building design that will create schools thatprovide inspiration for pupils, staff and parents over thelong term, and encourage the highest possible standardsof educational achievement”“Each consortium will be expected to engage a designteam of the highest possible calibre, (or more than onedesign team depending on size of project) who shouldhave a track record in design excellence – preferably ineducation buildings in general and schools in particular”“We wish to encourage innovation in design and detailingand will favour proposals that propose how this might be achieved”.

AdvantagesThe development of a reference scheme will providean invaluable learning curve for client bodies new tocommissioning a school – territory that is typicallycompletely new to many of the participants. This process will clarify the expectations of the client and get consensus about the brief among key stakeholdersA reference scheme for some building types within agrouped school or for specific parts of buildings will mean that the brief is developed for the grouped schoolas a whole The process can avoid wasting resources in the laterstages of the processThe reference scheme will explore particular issuesrelating to the site and establish any particular aspectsthat may need to be dealt with at an early stage, (for example, access or boundary issues)The scheme will provide a basis for checking the budget,and avoid initial cost assumptions that can blight projectsfrom the outsetA well-developed reference scheme will provide a benchmark for quality, which will be valuable in assessingproviders' bids

Box 10

The reference scheme could be used towards an Outline Planning applicationIt also has potential advantages for bidders: reducingdesign changes in later stages, setting a level playing field for competition and reducing expensive survey work

DisadvantagesUp-front costs will be incurredThe expectations of the stakeholders will need to becarefully managed so that they remain open to differentdesign responses by consortia and to ensure that theyhave realistic expectationsNeed to avoid confusion about the role of the designersand their designs in the overall PFI process, to avoidarchitects and stakeholders becoming too wedded to a particular solution There is some concern that initial design work inhibitsinnovation by consortia, although in reality it is likely toprovide them with a useful benchmark of the qualityexpected, therefore creating greater certainty in thebidding process and providing a standard against whichto judge their design and encourage innovation.

Stage Two: Brief development and early design work

Pros and cons of undertaking further design work

Below

Hoddern Junior School, Peacehaven

LEA/Client: East Sussex County Council


Contractor: HBG Ltd


Procurement: PFI


Above (left and right)

Debden Park High School

LEA/Client: Essex Local Education Authority

Architect: ACP

Contractor: Jarvis


Procurement: PFI

PFI Credits: £14.14m

Page 21

Peacehaven Community School, Peacehaven

LEA/Client: East Sussex County Council


Contractor: HBG Ltd


Procurement: PFI


20

5 StageThree: OJEC and the Output Specification

5.1 IntroductionOnce PRG approval has been given and credits confirmedby DfES, LEAs can prepare material to put out to themarket, against which consortia will bid. Assuming initialdesign work has been done, the LEA will be well placed tomake clear signals that design quality will be given a highemphasis in the selection of the successful bidder. At thisstage the LEA will be preparing for and developing theOJEC notice, Pre-Qualification Questionnaire, PreliminaryInformation Memorandum, Output Specification andpreparing for open day.

5.2 Outline planning applicationThe submission for outline planning consent is a keymilestone for the initial design work undertaken. The clientneeds to be aware that full planning approval will requiremore detailed design proposals that will not emerge untillater in the process and that these will be more extensivelyscrutinised than the outline application. This scrutiny can be from statutory authorities, statutory consultees, thewider community or local interest groups. In addition,CABE’s Design Review Committee (as a non-statutoryconsultee) has requested all Local Authority Planningdepartments to refer a selection of PFI schools to them for review before a planning application is submitted. The feedback of this committee will only be made publicwhen a detailed application is lodged.

5.3 ConsultationsIt is very important that right from the beginning of a project,as part of developing the OBC and reference schemes,there is proper consultation with the staff, pupils and thewider community and that this is well managed. In addition,there needs to be consultation with other public sector andvoluntary sector groups in the area to explore the potentialof integrating related public services on to one site, such asa nursery or library. This is particularly important given theincreasing use of schools out of hours.

Consultation can be very time consuming when workingwith several teams during the bidding process. For thesereasons, the brief has to be explicit and the design advisorhas to ensure that all elements have been clearly explainedand understood by all parties. There will be little opportunityto change elements later in the process. If the LEA needsparticular help to get the most out of the designconsultation process, then the organisation School Worksoffers specific and tailored advice and assistance.

5.4 Output SpecificationThe most important factor in the selection of consortia andachieving high quality design is that the LEA, as the client,knows exactly what it wants and that this is clearly statedin the output specification. The design advisors shouldobtain copies of the documentation prepared by others andimprove on the contents and format, rather than startingfrom scratch. In addition, initial design proposals can beused to give a lead to the bidders, obtain agreement withthe users and publicise the project’s vision.

‘Must not haves’ for schoolsFrom visits to other schools at the earliest stages ofpreparing for PFI, LEAs may have certain arrangements ordetails in mind, which they would not wish to repeat in theirschools. If this is the case, it is essential that this is statedclearly within the project documentation. The following aresome prompts of issues that LEAs may wish to consider:

Teaching and circulation areas that do not make the mostof opportunities for natural lightPoor ventilationCentralised control only for ventilation, glare and lightlevels (i.e. reasonable local control required)Corridors which are institutional in design with littleinterest, are narrow and fully enclosed with no natural lightOutdoor spaces that are leftover, unplanned and havelittle function and which are not overlooked by internalspaces or have little access to themUncoordinated services – a plethora of conduits, alarmboxes, fire hydrants and emergency notices External spaces between wings that are less than 10m wideThresholds that are not levelDrainage that is not co-ordinated with openings and walls.Poor acoustics.

Box 11

5.5 Refining the programmeThe programme developed at earlier stages should now beupdated to reflect more detailed issues that have emerged,including outline planning. This refined programme will thenbecome the basis on which consortia will bid.

22

It is important to stress the need for sufficient time fordesign within the overall programme and adequate time to set up a series of design discussions between biddingdesign teams and schools. There have been some reportsof highly compressed time scales imposed on the designteams and various cited instances of schools going intoconstruction with designs not properly worked up. This will inevitably lead to compromises, waste and poorerquality over the longer term.

5.6 Going to OJECThe advertising of an OJEC (Official Journal of EuropeanCommunities) notice for consortia is a key milestone in thePFI process. OJEC procurement rules encourage criteria for‘aesthetic and functional characteristics’ so the LEA shoulddefine clearly the criteria for selection so the bidders are leftin no doubt.

The notice should include statements about the LEAsdesign expectations as outlined in their OBC. If relevant,minimum thresholds should be specified and expectationsregarding design teams put forward by consortia. Anexample of the issues that bidders should be asked toaddress and against which criteria should be set include:

Evidence of the consortia and design teams’ experienceof designing schoolsA commitment to retain the consultant team throughoutthe processThe structure of the consortia and in particular theintegration of design, construction and facilitiesmanagement, to encourage investment in long lastingmaterials and energy efficiency.

The importance that is attached to design, and the issueshighlighted above, must also be reflected in the weightingsand statements included in subsequent documentation forexample the PQQ and PIM.

5 Stage 3: OJEC & the Output Specification

Above left

Jersey Girls College, St Saviours

LEA/Client: States of Jersey Education Department


Contractor: Charles le Quesne




Above right

Kingswood Day School, Bath

LEA/Client: Kingswood Day School

Architect: Feilden Clegg Bradley

Contractor: PRC Construction




Middle

The Hertfordshire & Essex High School,Bishop’s Stortford

LEA/Client: The Hertfordshire & Essex High School

Architect: Hawkins\Brown

Contractor: Sindall Construction Ltd / Ekins & Co




Below

Haute Vallee School, St Helier

LEA/Client: States of Jersey Education Department


Contractor: Charles le Quesne




Overleaf

Clifton Junior School

LEA/Client: Birmingham Local Education Authority

Architect: Abbey Holford Rowe

Contractor: Galifords FM


Procurement: PFI


25

6 Stage Four: Negotiations

6.1 IntroductionFollowing the return of OJEC responses or expressions ofinterest by consortia, some forms of PFI include a stagecalled ISOP, (Invitation to Submit Outline Proposals), duringwhich the client requests the long-listed bidders to submita statement of design approach or drawn outlineproposals. However, this stage is not currently being usedin schools procurement.

Therefore, for most schools PFI projects the LEA will selectconsortia and progress directly to the ITN stage (Invitationto Negotiate) at which point the consortia will have beenshort listed down to 3–4. It is recommended practice toissue draft ITN documentation for feedback andmodification. Intense negotiations follow before reachingPreferred Bidder stage.

6.2 Establishing weighted selection criteria torecognise design qualityIt is important to establish criteria for judging design beforeinviting submissions. They should therefore be establishedearly in the PFI process and the criteria, together with theirweightings, should be published to signal commitment to design. It is essential that design quality be givensubstantial weighting and a suggestion for appropriateweightings could be as follows:

Financial, Legal and Commercial: 30 to 35%Facilities Management: 30 to 35%Construction and Design: 30 to 35%

These weightings reflect the increasing, and welcomed,standardisation that is now becoming the norm in the areasof finance, legal and facilities management. It should alsobe recognised that there will be some criteria which, if notmet, will be ‘show stoppers’ in so far that if consortia donot meet a minimum standard, they could be eliminated.As far as is possible LEAs should set minimum standardswhich consortia should achieve.

When evaluating proposals, the inclusion of desirableproject elements, aimed at encouraging innovation anddesign quality, should be considered carefully. Also LEAsshould avoid being distracted by the offer of additionalfacilities or potentially a replacement school, which werenot part of their original expectation. This could stretch thebudget to the detriment of the overall design quality andmight turn out to be a false economy.

6.3 Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) The Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) andaccompanying Prior Information Memorandum (PIM), morecommonly referred to as the market brief, provide the LEAwith the opportunity to supplement, but not alter, theconditions of the OJEC notice. More explicit informationcan be included about objectives, selection criteria andweightings, expectations for design quality, the teams’qualification and anticipated management of theconsultation process. A rigorous approach to this part of the process helps ensure that consortia are selected in an appropriate manner and not on the basis of limitedinformation, and that the process ensures the consortiaand their design teams are fully scrutinised.

6.4 Invitations to Submit Outline Proposals (ISOP) The ISOP stage is not generally used in PFI schoolsprojects, but for completeness some general guidance is provided here.

The more information that is provided to the bidders at thisstage, the better informed will be their responses and, inturn, this will help the client in its decision-making. Althoughthe PFI procedure allows for Invitations to Submit OutlineProposals (ISOP) to include a request for a designstatement or sketch design proposals to assist in shortlisting, it seems to be the general practice for schools thatshort-listing is carried out by an interview process alone,without design proposals being seen. To date, design israrely discussed at these interviews and is thereforesidelined at what is a key selection stage.

It is therefore recommended that LEAs issue a draft brief tothe bidders at this stage and invite responses at the interview.There will be specific issues that the brief and initial designwork will bring out which may be treated as issues forresponse. However, the design work that is requested atthis stage should be limited and bidders should be askedabout their approach, rather than design solutions, toissues such as daylight, circulation, materials, etc.

This approach needs to be managed well to avoidsubstantial or wasted work. The consortia can respond byway of reference to the existing work of their design teamsor with specific responses to the site or the brief withthumbnail sketches. The client will therefore need to beable to assess design responses, which is where their initialdesign work will help. LEAs are also obliged to respect theconfidentiality of bidding teams in this competitive process.The assistance of the design advisor will be invaluable hereto promote quality while retaining probity.

2726

6.7 Management of consultationsMost LEAs seek to involve schools and particularly headteachers in the negotiations with the consortia. Thissometimes happens only at the later stages of the PFIprocess. However, this engagement would ideally occurmuch earlier. Otherwise there is a risk of changes occurringto the brief, which is wasteful for the LEA and the consortia.

It is typical in all procurement routes to have key sign-offsto consolidate the brief and the design before progressingto the next loop of the iterative process of design. Thismeans that the layouts are frozen before detailed design,so that design teams can focus on refining the detailingand co-ordination, in sufficient time before constructionbegins. The practice seen with PFI schools has sometimesbeen weakened as the negotiation period has been used toconsolidate, and often change, a sketchy brief. During ITNthe bidding consortia may meet with stakeholders todiscuss their proposals. The design advisor can help bymaking sure that stakeholders have contributed to theoutput specification. This is important as the ability topositively address changes to the brief and designbecomes more constrained as time passes.

It is good practice to involve head teachers. It is importantto make sure that they are part of the client team from the outset and have been involved in the clients emergingthought processes, for example during visits to otherfacilities when initial objectives were agreed. Theinvolvement of head teachers has advantages but it isimportant to remember that the school will usually havemany different heads during its operation, and undulyprescriptive design solutions should be avoided. It is also important that design solutions are balanced. As an example, a pre-occupation with providing generouscirculation space could reduce space provided withinclassrooms or vice versa and may be achieved at the risk of reducing specification or poorer finishes.

A consultation process may entail three or more workingsessions between the client / end-user representatives fromeach school and the bidders. These sessions would ideallyoccur at regular intervals through the ITN stage of theprocess. More intense discussion is also likely once thePreferred Bidder has been identified.

Whilst user participation during the bidding process shouldbe maximised, it has to be understood that this is very timeconsuming when working with several consortia and theirdesign teams. For these reasons the brief has to be explicitand the design advisors have to ensure that all elementshave been clearly explained and understood by all parties.Some sectors, such as NHS hospital trusts, use extranetsites to assist the management of information andcomments during the negotiation stage. This can providean efficient means of communicating and gatheringinformation from access bidders and the entire client group.Feedback through an extranet can be interactive, open, yet confidential. This requires resources but may save onmanagement overheads.

Stage Four: Negotiations

6.5 Invitation to Negotiate (ITN)It is recommended that the number of teams entering theITN stage should be no greater than 4 and preferably 3.The short listing process should eliminate consortia and thiswill need to be properly documented and in line with criteriastated in OJEC/PQQ.

The Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) will then be issued to theremaining bidders. It is critical that the client bodycommunicates to the bidding consortia that design will beof paramount importance in the evaluation of tenders andthat this will be in the context of applying principles of BestValue, i.e. combining quality and cost.

The ITN documentation represents a substantial body ofwork by LEAs, which can benefit from being developedearly and consolidated through an iterative process.Typically, this covers details under the following headings:

Information on the Invitation to Negotiate – includingevaluation criteria and proceduresOutput specification – outlining requirements relating todesign and facilities managementDraft Contracts.

On the basis of this detailed information submitted byconsortia, intense negotiations begin. This represents asignificant investment by consortia and the level of risk will be reflected in their investment of time. The number of consortia undertaking abortive work should be reducedboth by restricting the number of teams to a reasonableminimum at each stage and by early appointments. Thisresults in more meaningful and competitive negotiations.

It is also useful to outline at the beginning what material willbe required for the final assessment of the Preferred Bidder.The box below outlines some suggestions for this inrespect of assessment of design.

Suggested deliverables by consortia at ITN stageConsortia should provide the following on no more than 10 x A1 sheets or boards:

A full set of plans, elevations and sections of the proposaldesign at a scale of 1:200A site plan, which must include the surrounding contextat a scale of 1:500. This should indicate levels, trees, allexternal sport facilities, parking, habitat areas, thelandscape strategy, materials and level changesA selection of artist’s impressions/computer perspectivesproviding accurate, coloured 3-Dimensionalrepresentations of the designs from both the outside and inside or a model at a scale of 1:200 or 1:250Concept diagramsServices strategyA large-scale part elevation describing materials at a scale of 1:50Materials/image/mood boardsDetails of typical and special classrooms indicatingdaylighting, acoustic performance and soundtransference calculations, service integration, typicalfinishes, etc Details of catering facilities (including servery areas plus details of how number of meals will be managed in theavailable time)Zoom-in of any areas which reflect innovative design.

They should also provide a specification, indicating finishesthroughout and an A3 design report, which sets out thedesign strategy for the building, covering planning andaesthetic issues, the internal layout services flexibility andthe form of construction. This report should include theapproach to sustainability and the principles of theRethinking Construction initiative.Box 12

6.6 Expert assessmentAppraising design proposals is not easy. It is very importantthat the client team includes the appropriate skills to assistwith this process and to advise teachers, governors etc.This is the continued role of the LEA design advisor and theDfES / CABE Project Enabling Team (PET).

It is recognised that design, and associated facilitiesmanagement, can be a significant variable. However, ratherthan weighting it lower because of this, with sufficient skill,quality can be objectively assessed. The use of DesignQuality Indicators and design advisors will assist.

2928

7.4 Design development between Preferred Bidderand Financial CloseClients need to be aware that their negotiation positionchanges after Preferred Bidder stage. This is a time to beparticularly robust, as client, to avoid what is referred to as‘design drift’ whereby the Preferred Bidder may downgradethe specification, possibly to meet affordability criteria.

Given the right teams and relationships, the period betweenPreferred Bidder and Financial Close should be seen as aperiod of partnership in which creative development of theproposal can occur to maximise value. This will require askilled client and a committed consortium, but it overcomessome of the problems of the separation of client fromdesigners that can occur earlier in the PFI processes.

Equally, it is vital that significant changes to the brief should not occur, as this is a critical and pressured time for the design team in their refinement of details and the co-ordination of services before start on site.

7.5 Maintaining quality on-siteThere is again a real danger of the client losing focus oncethe project moves on to site and experience shows thatthis can be a period during which the project design qualityis at high risk of being diluted.

As with any project, there is always the tendency for shortcuts in terms of the quality of materials, finishes andgeneral workmanship. The consortium’s design teamshould be involved throughout the construction process tomonitor the quality of design and finish, which should neverbe allowed to be signed off pre-completion as anunnecessary additional expense.

If the design standards and quality thresholds are clearlydefined, then the review process throughout the deliverystage should provide sufficient safeguards against suchquality dilution. This has the virtue of making it theresponsibility of the consortium to develop and get thenecessary buy-in to changes from the client.

7.6 Post project evaluationIn order to support the continual refining and improving of PFI, evaluation of buildings post-occupancy should be encouraged and any lesson learnt passed on to otherLEAs. This evaluation should be planned in advance. This feedback is essential if PFI is to continue to mature as a procurement method that delivers improved standardsand design quality.

7 Stage Five: Selection of the consortium and delivery of the project

7.1 IntroductionAdopting the principles that have been described so farshould produce significant improvement in design withinthe PFI process, but they do not provide a guarantee ofsuccess. As always this will be largely dependent on theskills and commitment of all those involved with the project,and hence the need to attract the right people at OJEC.The best process in the world can still deliver a poorproduct. While this guidance is therefore process-led, the quality of the product needs constant minding. This custodial principle is particularly true during FinancialClose, construction and fit-out as, for example, pressure of programme can mean that time is lost from the finaldesign phases.

The time from Financial Close to start on site creates apressure point on designers within the PFI process. It is atthis stage that details are developed and refined, and whenstructure and services are co-ordinated. This is the timewhen the quality of the detailing is created and refined, andshould therefore be carefully safeguarded.

7.2 Achieving maximum quality for a given budgetA short-list of compliant bids together with designproposals is developed for final negotiations. Unless wellmanaged, the final selection process can easily become a method of driving down design quality through valueengineering. Instead, competition should be on the qualitythat can be delivered within a given budget. As a generalprinciple it is thought that processes such as Best AndFinal Offers (BAFOs) and Last and Final Offers (LAFO)should be avoided wherever possible, since these involveconsiderable cost and are frequently extremely negative tothe quality of the final design.

7.3 Allowing sufficient timeSufficient time must be allowed between the selection ofthe Preferred Bidder and Financial Close. This is the timewhen the greatest resources are put into a project becausethe consortium now has the security of Preferred Bidderstatus. It is also the time when detailed planningapplications are made.

The main risk for design quality after appointment ofPreferred Bidder is that of time compression for the designteam. Even if the early phases have slipped, it is importantnot to play catch-up with the later phases, particularly fromapproval to start on site. It is vital to ensure that once aPreferred Bidder is in place the rush to start building doesnot restrict the ability to ensure good design. This pressurewill often have to be balanced with the need for the schoolto be open by a set date, for example the beginning of anew academic year or term. This re-emphasises the needfor the client to adopt a realistic programme or timetable for the entire PFI process. This problem particularly applieswith large grouped schools where the design load canstretch even the largest practices, which is one of thereasons why we recommended earlier the use of more than one design firm.

Ensuring the design has been developed to the appropriatelevel of detail and the relevant drawings have beencompleted prior to starting on site is obviously critical. It isthe responsibility of the client to ensure that there continuesto be satisfactory design evolution as well as financial andlegal closure. In particular, the client must be watchful ofcontractor value engineering reducing the design quality ofthe approved scheme. The LEA may need to have expertconsultants available to check the contractor valueengineering against the Output Specification, and tomonitor that quality is maintain post contract and duringconstruction. The link in PFI between the contractor andFacilities Management will help with this. Where cutsbecome unavoidable, it is critical that the client has accessto both independent design expertise and user consulteesin making the necessary choices.

3130

8 Conclusions

This guide has specifically focused on those areas of thePFI process where design is vulnerable: the ‘soft’ spotswhere, without effective client management, design can beeither sidelined or safeguarded. To place this guidance inthe wider picture of procurement it is possible to identify afew key lessons and principles in common with otherprocurement options.

1. Making the best use of fundingTypically, good clients benchmark their desired facilitiesusing precedents. Perhaps because PFI credits areawarded by the DfES, there is a tendency towardsacceptance or dependency. As a result there can be amisconception that there is little scope for ingenuity and asa result little, if any, benchmarking takes place. Clients canuse design studies to tease out innovative solutions, toprioritise objectives and identify savings.

2. Develop a brief based on a specific understanding ofeach site and the views of stakeholders, and explorehow best to deliver the curriculum in the processThe brief needs to be tested through design analysis andconsultation and in an interactive process to achieveconsensus before going to the market. Test this briefagainst affordability so that the client expectations arerealistic before engaging with consortia.

3. Use design feasibility work as a consultation tool tohelp articulate what the client and stakeholders wantfrom the investment in schoolsUse design practices to help engage with the communityand assist with the articulation of key objectives. Startfeasibility work as early as possible in the process,preferably before preparation of the Outline Business Case.

4. Share innovations and best practiceSeek to improve the process either by learning from otherLEAs or by self-improvement through using a rollingprogramme. Identify at the end, in a post-occupancyevaluation, how either the process or the buildings could be improved, so that the client or other LEAs can learnfrom the experience.

5. Provide leadershipPFI projects involve many stakeholders, from the client side,the community, and the providers. This requires great skillfrom a key individual to act as the patron and motivate allto commit to excellence. Focus on the longer termthroughout the pressurised decision making process.

6. The client should appoint the best team to make this happenBe informed in selecting advisers and be demanding in negotiations with bidders to achieve the very best.Complacency at any stage will mean that quality will suffer so have the stamina for the long haul.

7. See PFI as a challengeThis document sets out some challenges but the bestoutcome will be when each LEA is determined to get thevery best schools from this programme of development.The recommendations in the document hopefully willencourage LEAs to get to grips with the complexities, to be aware how to continually improve the process andoutcomes, to be robust in establishing the brief andobjectives, and to persevere until the best outcome isachieved. Then the PFI process has the greatest chance of success.

9 Abbreviations

AMP Asset Management Plan

BAFO Best and Final Offer

CABE Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment

DCMS Department for Culture Media and Sport

DfES Department for Education and Skills

DQI Design Quality Indicator

EDP Education Development Plan

FM Facilities Management

FF&E Furniture, Fittings and Equipment

ISOP Invitation to Submit Outline Proposals

ITN Invitation to Negotiate

LEA Local Education Authority

NAO National Audit Office

OGC Office of Government Commerce

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

OJEC Official Journal of the European Communities

OBC Outline Business Case

OS Output Specification

PFI Private Finance Initiative

PQQ Pre-Qualification Questionnaire

PET Project Enabling Team

PRG Project Review Group

PPP Public Private Partnership

PSC Public Sector Comparator

PIM Prior Information Memorandum

RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects

SBDU Schools Building and Design Unit

SPFU Schools Private Finance Unit

SOC Strategic Outline Case

TTF Treasury Taskforce

VfM Value for Money

Bidders, Providers and Consortia these terms can be taken to mean the same thing in this document

10 Useful organisationsand publications

Commission for Architecture &the Built Environment (CABE)

contact details:The Tower Building 11 York RoadLondon SE1 7NXT 020 7960 2400F 020 7960 2444E [email protected]

website:www.cabe.org.uk

publications:available through the website

The Value of Good Design, 2002

Improving Standards of Design inthe Procurement of PublicBuildings, 2002, with OGC

Prime Minister's Better PublicBuilding Award 2002

Better Civic Buildings and Spaces,2002

Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative– Design Competition, 2002, withDfES

Design Review, 2002

Celebrating Innovation, 2001

Design in Construction Alliance,2001

The Value of Urban Design, 2001,with DETR

Better Public Buildings, 2000, withDCMS & OGC

Design Quality in PFI Projects: HMTreasury Guidance Note No 7,2000, with HM Treasury

By Design – Urban Design in thePlanning System: Towards BetterPractice, 2000, with DETR

Department for Education and Skills (DfES)

contact details:Sanctuary BuildingsGreat Smith StreetLondon SW1P 3BTT 0870 0012345F 020 7925 6000E [email protected]

website:www.dfes.gov.ukwww.teachernet.gov.uk/schoolbuildings

publications: Schools for the Future: BuildingBulletin 95, The Stationery Office,2002 (this document has a usefulreference list)

Revised Area Guidelines July2002: Building Bulletin 82(available on website)

Designing Space for Sports andArts, DfES design guide, 2000,with Sport England, Arts Council ofEngland & DCMS

Inclusive School Design: BuildingBulletin 94, The Stationery Office,2001

Science Accommodation inSecondary Schools; BuildingBulletin 80, The StationeryOffice,1999

Classrooms of the Future, DfESinitiative (see website)

Spaces for Sports and Arts inPrimary Schools, DfES initiative(see website)

DfES Circulars & AssetManagement Plan

Guidance documents are availablefrom the website and from:

Department for Education & Skills

Publications CentrePO Box 5050Sherwood ParkAnnesleyNottingham NG15 0DJT 0845 602 2260F 0845 603 3360E [email protected]

Learning through Landscapes

contact details:3rd floor, Southside OfficesThe Law CourtsWinchester SO23 9DLT 01962 846 258F 01962 869 099

website:www.ltl.org.uk

Local Government Task Force(LGTF)

(set up to promote RethinkingConstruction)

contact details:108–110 Judd StreetLondon WC1H 9PXT 020 7837 8286F 020 7813 3060E [email protected]

website:www.lgtf.org.uk

publications:Rethinking the Construction Client:Guidelines for construction clientsin the public sector and otherswho receive public funding forconstruction

Integrating Rethinking Constructionwith Best Value

Rethinking Construction: 2002

Movement for Innovation (M41)

(set up to promote RethinkingConstruction)

contact details:Building 9BREBucknalls LaneGarstonWatford WD25 9XXT 01923 664820F 01932 664822

website:www.m4i.org.uk

National Audit Office (NAO)

contact details:157–197 Buckingham Palace RoadLondon SW1W 9SPT 020 7798 7000F 020 7798 7070E [email protected]

website:www.nao.gov.uk

publications:Modernising Construction, 2001

Office of GovernmentCommerce (OGC)

contact details:Fleetbank House2–6 Salisbury SquareLondon EC4Y 8AET 0845 000 4999F 01603 704618E [email protected]

website:www.ogc.gov.uk

publications:available on website

Private Finance Technical Notes

Achieving Excellence, OGCinitiative, see website underProperty & Construction

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development &the Programme on EducationalBuilding (OECD/PEB)

contact details:2 rue Andr-Pascal75775 Paris Cedex 16, FranceT +33 (1) 45 24 92 60F +33 (1) 45 24 02 11E [email protected]

website:www.oecd.org

publications:Designs for Learning: 55Exemplary Educational Facilities,OECD, 2001

Partnerships UK (PUK)

contact details:10 George StreetLondonSW1P 3AET 020 7273 8383F 020 7273 8368

website:www.partnershipsuk.org.uk

4psPublic Private PartnershipsProgramme

contact details:83 Victoria StreetLondon SW1H 0HWT 020 7472 1550F 020 7472 1560E [email protected]

website:www.4ps.co.uk

publications:available on website

Achieving quality in Local AuthorityPFI building projects, 4ps guidancefor Local Authorities, 2001

Output Specifications for PFIProjects, A 4ps guide for Schools

Rethinking Construction

contact details:see above: Local GovernmentTask Force (LGTF) & Movement forInnovation (M41)

website:www.rethinkingconstruction.org

publications:Rethinking Construction: the EganReport, 1999

Royal Institute of BritishArchitects (RIBA)

contact details:66 Portland PlaceLondon W1A 4ADT 020 7580 5533F 020 7255 1541E [email protected]

website:www.riba.netwww.architecture.com

RIBA Client Services(address as above)T 020 7307 3700F 020 7436 9112E [email protected]

publications:A Guide for School Governors:Developing School Buildings,Prepared by the RIBA SchoolsClient Forum, RIBA, 2000(this document has a usefulreference list)

The Architect’s Plan of Work, RIBA Publications, 2000

School Works

contact details:The Mezzanine-SouthElizabeth House39 York RoadLondon SE1 7NQT 020 7401 5333E [email protected]

website:www.school-works.org

publications:Learning Buildings, School Works,2002

32

This document has been prepared by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). A number of people have contributedto the drafting of the document, to whom CABE are grateful: AndrewBeard, Miriam Fitzpatrick, GeorginaFranks, Martin Lipson, GrahamParker, Andrew Price, John Waldron,Desmond Williams. We would alsolike to thank our colleagues from DfES for their inputs. Thank you also to those who have contributedimages to the document, which are included to provide examples ofschool buildings being delivered forvarious clients and through differentprocurement routes

Photography credits:Cover Millennium Primary School © Chris Henderson www.chp-photo.com; p5 Owler Brook NISchool © Sheffield City Council;Jubilee School © AHMM Architects;Whiteley Primary School © NevChurcher p5 and 6 Great NotleyPrimary School © Timothy Soar p9 Haverstock School © FeildenClegg Bradley; John Cabot CTC © Feilden Clegg Bradley (photo:Simon Dowling); Stephen HawkingSchool © David Stewart; Royal LatinSchool © Charlotte Wood; BalfronHigh School © Jarvis p11 Tanbridge House School © Peter Cook p19Hoddern Junior School © RichardBryant/Arcaid; Debden Park HighSchool © Jarvis p21 PeacehavenCommunity School © RichardBryant/Arcaid p23 Jersey GirlsCollege © Peter Durant; KingswoodDay School © Feilden Clegg Bradleyp23 The Hertfordshire & Essex HighSchool © Nick Carter p23 HauteVallee School © Jonathan Moore p24 Clifton Junior School © CABE(photo: Paul Bullivant)

Des

ign:

DU

FFY

The Tower Building11 York RoadLondon SE1 7NX

T 020 7960 2400F 020 7960 2444E [email protected] www.cabe.org.uk

Commission for Architecture& the Built Environment

Documents

Client guide: achieving well designed schools …webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:...4.6 Completion of the Outline Business Case 18 5 Stage Three: OJEC and the