Memorandum submitted by the Royal Institute
of British Architects (RIBA)
SUMMARY
— The RIBA is concerned that the design
standard of many schools is not high enough;
— We believe that the current delivery
framework for the BSF programme has a number of deficiencies and
pressure points that are resulting in insufficient design quality,
inefficient delivery in terms of speed and cost, and too little
support for inexperienced local authority clients. PfS has not
done enough to tackle these problems, despite the small but positive
recommendations coming at the end of the recent review;
— The RIBA urges that Partnerships
for Schools ensures much greater design preparation by the schools
as a client before going to market, and further resourcing needs
to be available to them much earlier in the process in the shape
of dedicated professional advice;
— We estimate that schools can save
upwards of £1 million and reduce the time for procurement
by six months if they invest more money upfront in the process
for design preparation;
— We believe a pilot study should be
run to prove that investing earlier in the process brings much
greater benefits, in terms of increasing design quality while
significantly reducing time and financial cost to bidders and
client.
INTRODUCTION
The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)
is one of the most influential architectural institutions in the
world, and has been promoting architecture and architects since
being awarded its Royal Charter in 1837. The 40,000-strong professional
institute is committed to serving the public interest through
good design. It also represents 85% of registered architects in
the UK through its regional structure as well as a significant
number of international members. Our mission statement is simple—to
advance architecture by demonstrating benefit to society and promoting
excellence in the profession.
BACKGROUND
The Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme
provides an opportunity for the transformation of a major pillar
of our society in a manner unparalleled since the post-war reconstruction
and the foundation of the welfare state. Both the breadth of vision
of the construction programme and the emphasis on educational
transformation as the driver are to be entirely welcomed, and
the RIBA and its members acknowledge the possibilities the programme
provides for innovative design solutions, showcasing the highest
standards of educational design.
The RIBA and CABE (the Commission for Architecture
and the Built Environment) have been increasingly active in disseminating
good practice and improving the skills base of the architectural
profession to meet this unparalleled challenge. We are now seeing
the fruits of this in some of the finished schools emerging from
the pathfinder projects and those that have reached financial
close in waves 1-3; a few of these are of an extremely high standard.
However, as we approach the higher volume phases of the programme,
it is worrying to note that the initial CABE Schools Review Panels
raised significant concerns about the design standard of many
schools, and there remains no wide-spread evidence of truly innovative
solutions coming forward.
The possible causes of this shortfall in design
standards include:
— a lack of architects skilled and
experienced in this specialist area of school design;
— the demands placed on the involved
professions' resources by a bidding system that ties up three
teams for several months and then discards two thirds of the design
work produced;
— the relatively low scoring given
to design in bid evaluation and the lack of relevant skills and
experience on the part of many evaluation teams;
— the tendency of some bidders to limit
the amount of detailed specification and detail available at bid
stage in order to provide greater scope for "value engineering"
after Financial Close;
— the ability of bidders to substitute
other design teams, possibly of lower quality, for the non-sample
schools after Financial Close; and
— the reluctance of many good quality
architectural practices to commit time and resources to bids that
may be abortive, or to assemble or disband design teams at short
notice; this is especially relevant in a buoyant market where
practices are already experiencing problems in finding staff.
Partnerships for Schools (PfS) have undertaken
a significant review of the procurement process, with a series
of recommendations being recently announced. However the changes
put forward, while setting the right direction of travel, have
been underwhelming in their scope, and together demonstrate an
acute paucity of vision.
RATE OF
PROGRESS THAT
IS BEING
MADE IN
BRINGING PROJECTS
TO THE
CONSTRUCTION STAGE
The rate of delivery through the BSF programme
has been disappointing. We believe that this is in part due to
problems associated with a laborious, inefficient procurement
model, and an unwillingness to encourage local authorities to
innovate on the preferred model of delivery to suit their own
needs and aspirations.
HOW THE
EXPERIENCE OF
THOSE IN
THE EARLY
WAVES IS
BEING DISSEMINATED
We believe that the current delivery framework
for the BSF programme has a number of deficiencies and pressure
points that are resulting in insufficient design quality, inefficient
delivery in terms of speed and cost, and too little support for
inexperienced local authority clients. PfS has not done enough
to tackle these problems, despite the small but positive recommendations
coming at the end of the recent review. Much more needs to be
done to capture the issues affecting BSF, to seek to learn from
innovative and creative solutions and to return this experience
into further waves through continuous improvement of the procurement
guidance to local authorities and their delivery partners.
There are already schemes in the pipeline that
are close to Smart PFI, and other procurement routes that do not
strictly adhere to the "traditional" BSF model. We can
learn from these. They also demonstrate that schemes can come
forward that are a departure from the standard procurement model.
If a willing local authority could be found, a pilot scheme would
not be impossible.
HOW THE
VISIONING PROCESS
IS BEING
DEVELOPED
There remain a number of fundamental issues
that require further attention. The PfS recommendations stopped
well short of what was possible from the review.
There has been no update on the required level
of preparations by local authorities, nor how the required improvements
to the support available to them during the crucial early stages
is to be funded. No amount of tinkering with the bid process can
overcome a lack of preparation by the public sector client. Partnerships
for Schools has committed to drawing up guidance stating the level
of preparation in the pre-bid stage required of local procuring
authorities
We believe that PfS have not yet taken the necessary
steps to ensure that every client is properly prepared, and have
failed to ensure much closer working between the architect and
educational client in the vital early design stages.
Therefore we are calling on PfS to:
— ensure much greater design preparation
by the client before going to market, and further resourcing available
to them much earlier in the process in the shape of dedicated
professional advice; and
— bring forward a pilot study to prove
the alternative proposal brings much greater benefits, in terms
of increasing design quality while significantly reducing time
and financial cost to bidders and client.
The RIBA will seek to work with PfS to ensure
that the guidance that they give to local authorities about preparing
for the procurement process goes far enough, and that it ensures
that local authorities do adequate design preparation, and that
they are properly resourced and professionally advised at the
very outset.
The RIBA believes that it is fundamental that
before engaging with the bidding teams the local authority work
out what they want. We believe that this requires the preparation
of a concept design to test, refine and finalise the brief. However,
a narrow interpretation of procurement doctrine is preventing
the next logical step from being taken, which is to integrate
early design work by the client into the bid process.
This would:
— avoid duplicate conceptual design
work by the bidders;
— place greater emphasis on partnering
as the key differentiator in the early selection process;
— allow bidders to concentrate on the
later, more detailed design work, bringing their own innovation
to bear and ensure best value is achieved; and
— guarantee a significant reduction
in bid costs.
HOW THE
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
IS WORKING
During the review's investigation, a number
of alternative scenarios, tested and proven in other sectors of
public and commercial procurement, were knocked-back in favour
of a much less ambitions series of proposals. The alternative
solutions placed far greater emphasis on design preparation by
the client before going to market, and on ensuring that the client
is properly advised by a professional, experienced team from the
very outset. These solutions were derived from innovations emerging
in more advanced forms of PPP, from the Treasury's latest developments
in its own PFI guidance, and from everyday best practice among
commercial developers.
Instead of embracing innovation and best practice,
what we have ended up with is:
— A reduction in the overall procurement
time, down to 75 weeks from the current 82-week model—this
compares to a possible saving of six months under alternative
procurement systems.
— Two lead bidders are selected earlier
in the process, after 29 weeks rather than 44 weeks in the current
process—yet there is still a huge burden of consultation
placed on the client through costly duplication early in the system.
A better solution would be further design development, perhaps
in the form of a concept design carried out by the client working
directly with a dedicated professional design team (see above
for more details), before going to the market to find a delivery
partner.
PROGRESS ON
REDUCING SCHOOLS'
CARBON EMISSIONS
AND ON
ACHIEVING ZERO
CARBON NEW
SCHOOL BUILDINGS
Too little progress has been made in delivering
low carbon schools. Whilst some local authorities have made significant
steps in increasing the focus on delivering sustainability and
reducing carbon emissions associated with the Schools Estate through
the BSF programme, overall the results in achieving low carbon
schools has thusfar been disappointing.
We believe that the BSF programme needs to place
a much greater focus on the delivery of low carbon schools. The
requirement to meet current building regulations standards is
insufficient for buildings that will have an operational lifespan
well into the middle of this century.
It should be made clear that BSF funding will
only be available for investment in school buildings with a low
carbon footprint throughout their life cycle. This is a significant
opportunity to transform the school estate and the manner that
the market views low carbon design and delivery, and should not
continue to be missed.
July 2008
| 
