Memorandum submitted by FSquared Ltd
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Our Involvement in BSF
FSquared is a social and economic regeneration
company with Charted Building Consultancy status. We specialise
in adding value to large scale regeneration programmes. We have
been involved in a number of Building Schools for the Future programmes
(BSF) where our role has centred on maximising the impact of this
investment for the benefit of communities in a way that promotes
social, economic and environmental sustainability.
1.2 Our Experience
We have experience in a wide variety of inward
investment projects and PFI/PPP programmes we have developed a
broad-based understanding of the mechanics of regeneration, and
an innovative approach to driving maximum added value from development
programmes. In our experience, successful regeneration is driven
by a strong strategic vision which targets local economic drivers,
sets clear aspirations for the programme, and creates space for
innovative responses.
We have a track record of working with both
the public and private sectors to understand the economic drivers
within their locality, and support them in procuring and delivering
developments which creatively respond to these. By ensuring that
social and economic outcomes are delivered, our projects make
the greatest possible impact on local people and their communities.
2. OUR EVIDENCE
SUSTAINABILITY
Q1. Will BSF ensure that schools are sustainable—environmentally,
economically and socially?
1.1 The BSF programme offers a real opportunity
to ensure that schools are sustainable—environmentally,
economically and socially. This could either be through the use
of sustainable technologies in design; promoting local procurement
and supply chain development or delivering adult learning for
local residents from the school sites. In any event, it will be
extremely difficult to achieve measurable impacts unless procurers
are guided to specify their wider sustainability objectives. So
far, our experience shows that this is not always the case.
1.2 Our experience of BSF to date shows
a number of examples where local authorities have stipulated high
environmental sustainability ambitions within the tender. For
instance, a key requirement of the Leicester BSF project is the
design and development of zero/reduced carbon schools. This is
aligned to the Office of Government Commerce's Achieving Excellence
Sustainability Guide. However, little thought has been given as
to how this might impact on the initial pricing of Sample schemes
and as to how such an approach might be adopted across the BSF
portfolio.
1.3 In contrast to environmental sustainability,
we have found that economic and social outcomes are not consistently
built into BSF programmes as a core requirement. Based on our
experience, these two elements are only addressed where the bidder
generates the interest itself and commissions organisations such
as us to identify and develop these opportunities. Whilst, in
a commercial context, this may be regarded as one way of distinguishing
between bidders, we feel that it represents a significant loss
of opportunity. It would be far better, in our view, to promote
an approach whereby all procurers are advised on the importance
of including wider social and economic regeneration objectives
as a core element of tender requirements. In this way, it would
still be possible to distinguish between the offers made by individual
bidders, but this would take place in the context of a fully exposed
range of regeneration requirements.
1.4 In addition, the absence of properly
constructed regeneration ambitions within tender documentation
raises, almost inevitably, challenges in bid evaluation. In particular,
it is impossible to know what, if any, weighting will be applied
to those bids which include a focus on wider regeneration outcomes
as a set against those bids which are silent on the matter. In
our view, this represents an inconsistency between the Government's
notion of best value and the acceptance of the lowest tender price.
1.5 To illustrate this point, we have highlighted
below some of the key economic and social sustainability issues
and requirements that we believe should be core to BSF programmes:
Social
— Community Development—adding
value to the extended schools agenda by supporting opportunities
for wider community usage and development activity. This could
include adult learning, pre and after school childcare, family
support services, room hire for local voluntary sector groups.
— Connectivity—engaging key agency
partnerships in BSF plans to promote community engagement and
overall "joined up" thinking.
Economic
— Employment—the creation of
employment opportunities for local people linked to construction
and long term maintenance of the schools.
— Local procurement and supply development—supporting
local businesses to access contracts and creating skills and training
opportunities.
1.6 A more robust and deep-seated approach
to embedding all three interdependent elements of sustainability
should be implemented throughout the BSF programme. We have identified
a number ways in which this can be achieved:
— A firm commitment to environmental,
economic and social sustainability within the outline business
and strategic business cases.
— The development of an outcomes, evaluation
and KPI framework to measure the sustainability benefits that
flow from BSF investment.
— The inclusion of sustainability criteria
in prequalification questionnaires and ITN documentation.
Q2. Will schools built under BSF satisfy
the Government's definition of sustainable development as being
that "which meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"?
2.1 The framing of the question does not
allow it to be easily answered. In general terms, we understand
this question to principally be concerned with future proofing.
In this context, there are a number of concerns.
2.2 First, regardless of the developments
in the design of schools, overall price remains a significant
barrier. This has particular significance in terms of viewing
schools as having a role beyond the delivery of the curriculum.
If schools are to serve as the major community resource of a neighbourhood,
then it is essential that some scope is allowed to incorporate
additional facilities and to produce flexible designs that will
enable schools to respond to changing community needs and
circumstances. Although there is much creative thinking around
this subject, our experience of BSF to date suggests that price
and current curriculum requirements will continue to dominate.
Q3. How effective are the tools currently
used in BSF to secure sustainable school design, including the
Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method
(BREEAM)?
3.1 We have not responded to this question
as it is not within our area of expertise.
FUTURE LEARNING
NEEDS
Q4. How effective is BSF at defining and
responding to learners' current and future needs? What role can
and do school users play in this process?
4.1 It should be stated from the outset
that BSF in itself does not define learner's needs, but it is
seen as a way of providing the facilities that will promote effective
teaching and learning. Inevitably, the perceived learning needs
of pupils are driven by the demands of the curriculum in the first
instance and also by other considerations such as pastoral care
requirements. BSF can serve as an effective tool to respond to
the current and future needs of learners, but only in the context
of the provision and management of facilities at this stage. We
have seen little evidence that schools and local authorities are
using the opportunity offered by BSF to rethink their teaching,
learning and curriculum strategies. Rather, most schools use BSF
as a way of a consolidating their existing practices and behaviours
through the design of appropriate facilities.
4.2 In terms of the involvement of school
users, it is important to recognise that there are several distinct
constituencies. In terms of pupils engagement, we understand that
most schools do make efforts to engage young people, particularly
at the outset of the process. However, and by the time the formal
bidding process has been reached, pupil involvement is generally
not significant. There is a similar picture with regard to staff
input. Almost inevitably, as the bidding process becomes more
focused, the principal contributions are drawn from the head teacher,
and in some cases, other senior staff. Concerning other users,
or indeed potential strategic partners, we have found little evidence
to suggest that they have any direct involvement, both in terms
of consultation and partnering.
4.3 In our view, whilst we understand the
importance and indeed the primacy of the school community, we
feel that real opportunities are being missed to fully engage
local people and agencies. As a result, much of this work falls
to bidders to carry out, but this is often too late to affect
the outcome in any significant way.
4.4 Therefore, we think that there is considerable
merit in adopting a much more structured approach to the development
of outline and strategic business cases. In particular, we would
urge that more emphasis is placed upon the generation of wider
partnership arrangements with other key strategic agencies, such
as urban regeneration companies, primary care trusts, neighbourhood
organisations, providers of further and higher education and sports
and arts bodies.
4.5 If this were made a requirement from
the outset of the BSF process, then local alliances could be put
into place that would help to shape the wider outcomes that ought
to be specified with in the bid documentation and bidders would
have a clear understanding of their broader obligations to the
localities within which the BSF project is based. This will produce
the double benefit of clearly laid out objectives and existing
partnership frameworks within which they can be pursued.
Q5. How effectively is BSF working with schools
to develop educational and organisational change that complements
the new buildings?
5.1 Although the replacement and improvement
of the educational facilities should provide some impetus for
change, our experience is that, in general, this opportunity is
not always fully exploited. As we have said earlier, many schools
regard BSF as a way of acquiring new facilities that will consolidate
existing patterns of curriculum delivery and school organisation.
Although it is understandable that head teachers and senior staff
wish to preserve what they feel works well, there is a need to
encourage a greater sense of experimentation and innovation. Without
this, although the buildings themselves will be significantly
better, we are likely to see present patterns of organisation
continue, regardless of their effectiveness.
5.2 Having said this, there is no doubt
that in some curriculum areas, such as information technology,
BSF provides a genuine impetus for change. However, it is a somewhat
disappointing to realise that the needs of learners of other pupils
are not given particular attention. This is another missed opportunity,
and may result in a number of adult learners not being able to
benefit from computer-based learning.
Q6. How actively does BSF foster transformation
in school learning and design?
6.1 Again, the wording of the question and
does not easily suggest an answer. Overall, we think that the
BSF process has not yet been developed sufficiently to form a
coherent view. However, unless some of the issue to which we have
previously alluded are addressed, the capacity of BSF to act as
an agent of the transformation will be severely limited.
6.2 In terms of school design, there is
some reason for optimism. Bidders are developing creative responses
to a vast range of physical and organisational challenges, not
to mention financial limits. However, as design requirements are
ultimately driven by each school, there are limitations as to
the levels of innovation that will be accepted
Q7. How successfully does BSF integrate with
other policy and funding areas (such as Every Child Matters and
Extended Schools) to deliver joined up solutions to educational
and community needs?
7.1 In general terms, most local authorities
have been reasonably efficient in connecting what might be termed
as standard funding streams. However, as we have described earlier,
there is insufficient attention paid to connecting BSF to other
major regeneration policies and funding sources. There are significant
benefits to be gained from considering these wider opportunities
much earlier than is presently the case. This is not only important
in terms of achieving best value, but is also essential in securing
the full and active commitment of key strategic partners.
7.2 We are of the view that more needs to
be done by local authorities to ensure that BSF is placed at the
centre of regeneration strategies within a given area and that
in so doing, many more resources could be brought to bear that
will help to achieve and support the wider social and economic
aspirations of the programme.
Q8. How are the strategic needs of local
authorities balanced with the needs of schools communities and
learners within BSF?
8.1 It is not unrealistic to expect that
BSF can be flexible enough to meet the needs of local authorities,
schools communities and learners. BSF was set up with high ambitions
for education reform and required local authorities, from the
outset of the BSF process to identify key stakeholders and develop
a vision that reflects the aspirations and needs of all. However,
during the course of the BSF development process, the wider needs
of schools' communities and learners are at risk of being subordinated
to financial considerations. This can potentially drive out added
value opportunities that could not only improve education outcomes
for pupils and other learners but can also put at risk the wider
benefits that ought to flow from a significant capital programme.
DELIVERY AND
FUNDING
Q9. How well is the BSF delivery and procurement
model working to deliver sustainable schools and best value, including
through Partnerships for Schools and Local Education Partnerships?
9.1 In general terms, the process is not
yet sufficiently advanced to be able to form a definitive view.
As with all procurements, sometimes of the model of procurement
works reasonably well, while on other occasions, processes are
too complex and poorly administered.
9.2 Clearly, it is also not possible to
form any judgment on the role of Local Education Partnerships.
With regard to Partnerships for Schools, they are clearly driven
by their primary task of securing significant capital investment
into the secondary school estate. However, this understandable
preoccupation can lead to missed opportunities and we are surprised
that no strategic or structural connection has yet been drawn
between BSF and other similar initiatives such as LIFT. As a result,
it is likely that the benefits of synergy are not being fully
exploited.
Q10. How successfully are Private Sector
Providers working within the BSF framework to deliver sustainable
schools and best value?
10.1 We believe it is too early to say whether
the BSF programme delivers sustainable schools and Best Value,
as the initiative is still in its relative infancy. However, there
are emerging concerns regarding the cost of bid development and
the time taken by some procurers to determine outcomes. We are
sure that this point will have been made by other respondees with
more than direct involvement than ourselves, so will confine our
views accordingly.
Q11. Are BSF funding levels sufficient to
deliver sustainable transformation?
11.1 There is a pressing need to fully and
coherently define phrases such as sustainable transformation in
order to ensure a common understanding of meaning and intent.
In terms of education transformation, inevitably there will never
be enough money to fund everything that is required. However,
there is reason to be cautiously optimistic about the impact of
BSF, particularly in terms of raising morale and aspiration. Nevertheless,
there is a danger that this will be short lived unless genuine
curriculum reform is placed alongside facilities improvement strategies.
11.2 In terms of the wider impact of BSF
and its potential to contribute towards local regeneration agendas,
the potential is enormous but has not yet been fully understood.
New schools have a major part to play in reviving local economies,
delivering lifelong learning and leisure and in promoting community
cohesion. These objectives should not be peripheral, as they appear
to be at the moment, but should be at the heart of BSF.
11.3 Measuring sustainability is something
that the NHS is developing through the good corporate citizenship
guide. This aims to identify the key opportunities for NHS organisations
to deliver sustainability. Something similar or a framework for
sustainable schools should be developed.
Q12. Are all stakeholders involved in the
planning and delivery process?
12.1 It is essential to define what is meant
by stakeholders. As we have said earlier, the school constituency,
comprising staff, pupils, parents and governors will always be
central to the process. Also, the role of the local authority
is crucial. Beyond this, however, much more work is required to
identify and engage local strategic agencies and local communities
and to define the roles that they might play. A starting point
might be to require local authorities and the participating schools
to map their key local partnerships at the outline business case
stage. This would provide the triple benefits of early engagement
and discussion about role and function, the alignment of capital
and revenue resources and the establishment of a context within
which the bidders will be required to work.
June 2006
| 
