N

EDUCA AL PROJECTS REVIEW

F RQJECTS

I)

E

“‘Builders should hammer ently so there’s less noise” - Hanover School Pupil.

Since 2001, the Council has greatly increased investment in major capital works in our Schools and is now bidding to Central Government for funding for a building programme intended to transform our Secondary Schools. With such large sums of public money involved, the Council needs to ensure that this expenditure is well managed and that we have a quality product at the end of the day.

Research tells us that improving the quality of the school environment has a real impact on learning and achievement, but the building process itself is extremely disruptive for schools and the whole procedure is often outside the experience of a group of people whose business is education.

With these considerations in mind, the Overview Committee set up a Review group to examine the experience of Schools which had already been through the major work process to see what went right and what went wrong and, by drawing from this, to make recommendations to CEA as to the key areas which should be included in ‘Guidelines’ on Capital Projects. As a result of the Review the group also came up with recommendations for the LEA and for the Council as a whole.

The basic good practice principles which emerged matched the good practice guidelines from Central Government and other Authorities. However, Schools face particular challenges in that they have to continue delivering education - you cannot rebuild the science block in the summer holidays - and there are the Islington factors of high density population, restricted school sites, conservation areas and vocal local residents.

The Review Group would like to thank all those, from both the Schools and City and Islington College, who gave so much time so willingly to share with us their experiences, bot and bad. Members were particularly impressed by the particiaption of Sc ouncils in the review - this direct pupil input was ve

riefings and iscussion sessions. thank the Officers from the Council and from CE

I

EVIEW GROUP

Cou n ci I I ors : Barbara Smith (Chair) Graham Baker Wally Burgess Mary Creagh Dorrie Valery Phiiippa Stobbs (Member of Overview Committee from Church of England Diocese) Francis Ayers (Member of Overview Committee from Roman Catholic Diocese) Richard Rieser (Member of Overview Committee from Parent Governors of Secondary Schools)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Review Group would like to thank all the schools, officers and individuals who assisted the scrutiny process. All contributions are detailed in Appendix D of the report.

The Review Group would Dike to give special thanks to the following who have helped this review with invaluable expertise and advice.

City and Islington College Peter Marsh (Vice Principal) Ann Sutcliffe (Capital Projects Team Leader)

Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School Jill Coughlan (Headteacher) Ian Whyte (School Bursar) Phil Walker (Director of PlatForm I)

Hanover School Paul Jarman (Headteacher) James Kinloch (Premises Manager) Karen Patrick (Chair of Governors)

Highbury Quadrant School Simon Dormand (Headteacher)

Hungerford School

Islington Arts & Media School

Brian 5ench (Acting Headteacher)

Jill Barton (Chair of Governors)

Scrutiny Committee Section: Kevin Kewin, Peter

eneration and ent:

E E N

The Review Group recommends that CEA @ Islington as the Council's education contractor:

Produce additional guidance to schook on capital projects which encompass these general principles:

That a communications protocol is agreed between all parties to ensure that there is regular dialogue and rapid resolution of potential problems.

Transparent decision-making, with clear and agreed criteria for decisions made through the life of the project.

A risk management process to be set up for all projects and a risk register kept and reviewed throughout the project.

Project management techniques should be used to plan and manage all projects.

Comprehensive information for schools setting out the agreed scope of the project, key roles and responsibilities, procedures for dealing with problems, and key milestones.

All projects should have clear ownership by the school and lead responsibility allocated within the school to someone with the skills and availability.

Make use of successful case histories in training and guidance.

Ensure that schools have detailed guidance on the following stages of capital projects: project planning, the design stage, planning of the construction works, the construction phase and the completion of the construction works, The Review Group's recommendations on what should be included in these guidelines are detailed in Appendix A.

The Review Group recommends that the Council:

Should consider moving to a 3'year capital programme decision process to allow more effective planning.

Provides guidance and training for schools on the statutory planning process, planning olicies, project anagernent and risk management, whic includes case steadies of

previous projects.

ctor of Regeneration and Education and t e Director of Environment an chook to enhance mutual

tract recommended for use in sc nce accordingly and Is to ensure that the

3

(e) Reviews and re-specifies the requirements of schosk for support from the construction related professional services as part of the process of preparing for the ALMQ.

I (f) Refreshes the list of architects recommended for commissions and promotes the opportunity to apply to local firms.

(9) Increases the pool of approved building contractors to strengthen the Council’s position in meeting the challenge of the projected boom in construction projects, particularly in London and the southeast.

(h) Ensure that appropriate senior management capacity is available to oversee capital projects and with the authority to take action to resolve problems as they arise.

(i) Seeks to recruit school governors with relevant experience and/or expertise.

1.

2.

2.1

2.2

3.

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

The Overview Committee at its meeting on 1 7tR December 2002 approved the formation of a group of members of the Overview Committee to review the arrangements for the progression of Education Capital Projects.

OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW

The objectives of the review agreed by the Overview Committee were as follows:

0 To review the experience of capital projects undertaken on School Sites in and out of the Borough.

e Develop an analysis of key success factors.

e Recommend key areas for good practice guidelines.

The Scrutiny Initiation Document (SID) is reproduced at Appendix E

METHODOLOGY AND TIMETABLING OF THE REPORT

Following the agreement of the Scrutiny Initiation Document by the Overview Committee, Officers devised a programme of work, taking into account the evidence Members wanted to receive. The Review Group then met to co-ordinate visits and make arrangements to gather and hear evidence from officers and schools.

In order to draw on a wide range of evidence within a short timescale, it was agreed that the review should consider in depth a small number of projects of varying sizes and outcomes, some involving in-house architects and some external architects. Headteachers and Chairs of School Governing Bodies were all invited to give evidence.

The methodology used in obtaining evidence from witnesses was varied and flexible in order to get the most information possible. Some witnesses provided evidence at meetings of the Review Group in the Town Hall. Some sub-group visits were undertaken to schools to talk directly to Heads and Governors, and an Officer visited two School Councils. Information from these was fed back to the Review Group in papers and through the reporting of the Chair.

In addition, Officers provided the Review Group with information on good practice in other authorities, selecte rough reference from the Audit CO mission and DfES, and from recent publications

A summary of the notes of visits and eetings are set out in to this report.

5

4.

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

?he last few years has seen a significant increase in capital investment in schools, both at a national level by DfES under a range of programmes and initiatives, and locally by the current administration. A large proportion of these new capital funds are devolved directly to schools. These developments have been challenging to schools and to this and other authorities where the experience and capacity to manage schools capital projects has had to be developed rapidly.

All LEAs (and individual schools) are required to prepare an Asset Management Plan, which has provided an effective information source and proper basis for prioritising and planning works at both an LEA and individual school level. The AMP, which is submitted to the DfES for approval, is drafted in accordance with national guidelines set out by the DfES, but tailored to Islington’s specific needs and circumstances, in conjunction with all the Council’s education partners. The costs of each project must be clearly defined and based on DfES guidance for both construction and fee costs, though the DfES does now recognise the reality of regional variation of costs of capital. This allows for more realistic costing at this stage.

?he experience of capital projects in Islington schools has been mixed. The essence of the group’s approach to this review was to hear the story of a range of projects from the stakeholders and to seek their analysis of the critical factors to success and/or failure.

The Review Group also sought to learn from other authorities rated as high performers in this field and the national agencies which seek to set standards and promote good practice in LEAs and schools. Information both written and verbal was collected from authorities recommended to us by the Audit Commission. This research is summarised in Appendix C and is reflected in the recommendations in this report.

The development of the ALMO requires the Council to review the provision of technical support to non-housing services which provide some 15% of the workload of Building Solutions for Islington. This provides an opportunity to review the provision of technical support to schools projects, which was a recurring theme in this review.

A large number of capital projects are managed by schools using their own devolved capital funds or other resources which they have secured directly. The LEA only releases devolved capital funds when CEA’s Planning and Development team agree projects. CEA @ Islington provide advice and support, and ‘hand-holding’ project management support on these projects.

L

not compliant with the DDA, and coat hooks fitted into the changing rooms of a secondary school that broke during initial usage by pupils. There was also a changing room too small for classes to use and a toilet block which provided inadequate privacy for pupils.

1

The dance studio has a very large picture window which has been broken and will be expensive to replace - a window of the same size but with a number of frames would have been easier to replace and much less expensive. (/A MS) I

The lift was installed to give disabled access. A wheelchair user could not reach the

e Poor communication with schools in relation to expectations, progress and probiems. This exacerbated schools’ feeling of being excluded from the process, made it difficult to resolve problems later on and on one occasion led to real disappointment in the school with the final outcome. For example when the contract was completed at Islington Arts and Media School which specialises in the Performing Arts the School did not have the performance space it was expecting. In some cases, it also meant that the governing body was unable to plan for the future due to uncertainty about when classrooms would be habitable. This had an impact on the curriculum planning, which in turn had an effect on the staff, children and their parents.

The Review group has sought to address the common problems and translate the key success factors into practical good practice points for the key stages of all projects.

5.2

5.3 The Review Group found a great deal of common ground between the list of critical success factors emerging from discussions with schools, from technical and professional advice provided in evidence, and from the experience of other local authorities. These apply to all projects and include:

Clear objectives, adhered to throughout the project. These were discussed and agreed by all stakeholders at the commencement of the project and then recorded formally to be referred to throughout.

A communication strategy in place that regularised meetings, reports and escalation procedures for when things go wrong between all parties throughout the process. This minimised delays, prevented confusion and helped cement the relationship

etween stakeholders to increase the success of the project.

y and involvement of the schools throughout the process. This resulted ductive relationship between patties and meant that there was less nderstanding a%d therefore disputes. The schools were clear about

would deliver and were able to influence the specification, the the outcome. As a result the schools were able to plan more

e school community.

roject planning to include full (whole life) cost and risk plannin s recommend it Commission demonstrated a

audit trail, effective

8

robust project planning an

consultation with all stakeholders. The adoption of an rigorous approach to risk meant that there were fewer hidden surprises that affected the project and that those that were identified were also managed, mitigated or removed. The use of project and risk management techniques assisted in setting realistic budgets and time-scales.

0 Consultation with local residents at an early stage to minimise delays in the statutory planning process.

The school consulted local residents and as a result the building was construcfed two metres back from where if was originally envisaged to address concerns about loss of light. (EGA)

~ ~~ ~

0 Clear roles, responsibilities and accountabilities resulted in a more collaborative approach that meant more got done to time-scale and that there was a clarity that minimised delays. Stakeholders were all kept on board as there were clear channels

unication to get information and updates as well as quick routes for the resolution of questions or problems.

e Transparent decision making processes for agreeing changes required, for example to meet affordability constraints or planning objections. The very transparency of process meant that all parties felt that they had an opportunity and a method to contribute to decisions and subsequent changes. This ensured there was ownership of all decisions and that all energies were directed towards a common goal.

The school set up a steering group, a project management team and an operations group. (EGA)

e Accurate and appropriate specifications - these prevented additional costs arising throughout the project as a result of inappropriate materials, fittings or approaches being taken. Where these were agreed after consulting the schools as well as technical officers and using the expertise of the contractors and architects there was a greater likelihood that the end product would be fit for purpose and that the project would come in at budget, or thereabouts.

The design for the new building was chosen through a competition. Staff then saw the winning design. The internal layout had to be re-designed, as rooms were unsuitable for teaching. (City and Islington College)

Rigorous selection of contractors to work in schools. Those boroughs that had a comprehensive list of approved contractors found that they were able to make a more informed choice when evaluating bids. The contractors had been vetted and their previous work history in a schook setting investigated and references sought. The success of this part of the process often lies with the relationship be Officers within the LEA and those elsewhere in the Council.

rrangernents are in lace to minimise ~ i s r u ~ t ~ o n to life and work of th here there were pia

ite meetings between the school an the site manager, the to deaf with the impact of the capi

. The plan aIlowed for effec vented mis U nd e rsta nd i allowed for er relationsh

management.

9

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

The Review Group considers the Asset Management Planning process undertaken by E A @ Islington on behalf of the LEA provides a sound basis for developing and prioritising the capital programme for schools.

The Review Group was impressed by examples of good practice that had been developed by some schools which contributed to the success of their projects, these included: brief daily site meetings between the head or senior manager with the contractor’s site manager; consulting children via the school council and assemblies, displaying plans for the capital works and allowing children to comment.

Evidence presented to the Review Group showed that some of the problems experienced in the past have been addressed by developments in practice by CEA @ Islington in support of schools to improve delivery of capital projects. A copy of the project initiation guidance produced by CEA to support schools is attached at appendix B.

Central to successful projects is effective project management. The Review Group was advised that a dedicated project manager is affordable only for projects of a value of f4million or above, but that CEA@lslington provides ‘hand holding’ support for smaller projects from its planning and development team. This places an onus on schools to take some ownership for project management and the Review Group heard of successful examples of a governor or senior manager in schools taking on this role.

In many of the successful projects there was a key individual: an acting head who was a building enthusiast; a school keeper who was very skilled at liaising with the builders; a bursar who was recruited because of his expertise in project management; a part-time teacher who proved to be qualified in IT, a new Headteacher who turned round a struggling project using experience of building work in his previous school.

6.

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

CONCLUDING

A rapid increase in the level of investment in schools has meant a steep learning curve for the authority and for schools. It is essential that the Council builds on this learning. The Government has made it clear that the level of capital investment in the school estate is likely to increase over the next few years so it is important that we use it wisely and manage improvements to enable schools to continue with their core business while works are in progress.

Where we were able to speak to School Councils we were invariably impressed by the considered, confident and articulate responses to our questions and the down to earth ideas offered for how to do it better. We hope that schools will build into their planning consultation with their customers, the pupils.

This review has sought to assess the experience of delivering capital projects for schools with a strong focus on the customers’ perspective. It has sought to provide achievable recommendations based on good practice ideas developed locally, in other authorities and reflecting national good practice guidance.

Finally, a particular focus of our findings and recommendations is the support, training and advice given to schools to ensure that they can be effective clients for the projects on their sites and maintain control over what is done and how. These recommendations are in large part based on good practice developed in Islington Schools by Heads, Senior Managers and Governors and we believe provide a good basis for the Council to continue to improve its current practices and procedures.

PPENDICES TO THE REPORT

AppendixA -

AppendixB -

AppendixC -

AppendixD -

AppendixE -

AppendixF -

The Committee’s Recommended Detailed Guidelines

CEA Project Initiation Guidance

Summary of Best Practice on Capital Projects in Schools

Summary of Visits and Meetings

Approved SID

List of Background Papers

A.1 -A.3

B.l - B.6

c.4 - c.2

.1 - D.4

E.l - E.2

F. a

DETAILED GUIDELINES

I. Project planning

Good communication: there needs to be clear understanding and agreement with schools on the scope and limitations of work planned.

Project Plans: these need to be prepared and agreed with all stakeholders.

Advice should be sought in good time from and provided by the Planning department, particularly for those in listed buildings and/or conservation areas.

Training sessions offered to headteachers, governors, bursars, school secretaries and premises managers and any other ‘project owner ‘ in schools.

Provision of a comprehensive handout for each project for schools setting out the process, roles and responsibilities of all parties, project management arrangements and escalation instructions should anything not go to plan.

A full risk management plan to be agreed by all stakeholders, to agree and manage expectations of all projects and plan for all risks identified.

Allocation of a lead liaison role for a school governor or staff member whose name will be made known to all concerned for all projects whatever the size and that they be made aware of the time and skills that will be required.

Consider strengthening the governing body’s finance/premises committee by co-option of person(s) with relevant skills.

2.

(a) Selection of architect - Schools and CEA should ensure architects are selected from the approved list held by CEA as suitable for working in schools. Schools should seek advice from CEA and CEA provide support where required.

esign standards should e set at the start of th should include sustainability, accessibility, fitness for whole life costs, including reference to DfES standards

A requirements.

Clarity on the budget is needed. A11 designs should be commissioned within budget, and costs should be realistic and account for all expenditure up to the point of use, including costs for security, fitting out and snagging. The additional costs for listed buildings or those in conservation areas should be taken into account.

The architectddesign teamlproject manager should consult with the planning department to minimise risk of non-approval.

School representative should attend planning committee with architect or project officer to support their case and facilitate agreement to adjustments to achieve planning permission.

All stakeholders, including staff, pupils, parents and neighbours where appropriate, to be consulted on the design.

The project specification must be agreed by the school, architect and project manager and clear standards set out for sign-off. This should happen before the tender documents are sent out and the school needs to be clear that it meets all their requirements.

CEA to make available to schools the approved fist of contractors suitable for school projects.

3. Planning of the construction works

The project manager should agree a plan with the contractor that minimises the disruption to the running of the school and the impact on neighbours.

Neighbours should be contacted and informed of the timescales in advance of the construction work in order to minimise problems.

Appropriate temporary arrangements to be agreed with schools e.g: access, temporary buildings and toilets.

Clearly named lead responsibility in the school allocated to hold daily progress checks and act as access point for the contractor.

The risk register should be reviewed and updated with the contractor involved in identifying and managing risks, contributin identification of solutions.

Detailed project plans for each phase of uilding work for complex rojects.

4.

5.

(g) There should be an updated communication protocol at each phase of the projects setting out the management arrangements and giving key personnel details and contact numbers.

(h) Any changes to the costs, project plan or variations to the design specification should be agreed with the school.

(i) Double - check access needed by contractors and ensure all permissions have been sought and granted.

Construction phase

A schedule of regular site meetings should be set up and should include the contractor, key technical staff, the project manager and/ or the lead officer for the school.

Key milestones to be agreed for each phase.

Dates should be agreed to review the risk register and the project plan.

Key staff and decision-makers should be available throughout the construction phase with agreed deputies empowered to act in their absence.

All interested parties to be advised that the work will begin, e.g.: children, parents, schools staff and suppliers, neighbours and other parties who access the school site.

Completion of the construction works

(a) Sign off of works to be agreed with the school using criteria agreed in the specification.

(b) Agreed protocol for dealing with post completion problems with clear accountabilities and arrangements for snagging.

(c) The project should be reviewed and a lessons learned report produced, agreed and shared with all stakeholders.

ompletion a report on projects ~ ~ ~ u r ~ s repared for governors, the head and sch

.3

~ CEA@lslinqton Plannina and Development

Client Representative Role

Planning and Development‘s Development Officers undertake a role on behalf of CEA@lslington to determine Asset Management Plan priorities and develop the recommended capital programme which is submitted to the Council each year.

The same officers, and the SureStart Development Officer also offer a Client Representative role for schools, other institutions and partners in developing and managing capital solutions to premises problems. Development Officers are always willing to discuss problems and potential solutions with supported organisations. However, once a potential project reaches the stage of initial feasibility there is a more structured and formal role, as set out below.

Once the need for a project to meet service objectives has been identified and initial development funding allocated

I, 2. 3.

4.

To help define problems with premises and accommodation To provide general advice on projects as solutions to premises problems To develop with the Client a project brief to match the client’s requirements, budget and programme To help identify consultants to develop feasible solutions

Once a probable solution has been identified and design funding allocated

I. 2.

Further develop the project brief and feasibility studies To help identify design consultants

Once a project has been designed

I. To facilitate procurement including tender openings/evaluations 2. To negotiate cost reductions as required to meet the client’s budget 3. To facilitate appointment of a project managerkontract administrator 4. To help prepare a timetable for the completion of the project 5. Toagree erformance indicators for the construction phase

Once a Project is in construction

I. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

To monitor performance indicators and the project timetable To record costs and authorise e ~ ~ e n ~ j t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ t s against valuations where req u i red To represent the client’s interests in keeping the roject on time and on budget To undertake site visits as appropriate To issue instructions for variations on ehalf of the client

pections and monitor snagging lists

After a Project has completed construction

1. 2. 3.

TO agree a final account To monitor the handling of defects To organise a project evaluation

I At all times

1 . To facilitate the resolution of any problems or disputes

The above will be simplified for small projects (under f50k) and expanded for larger projects (over f 500k).

.2

Project Initiation Document For

art of the Followin P rog ra m me

.3

roject Brief The aims of this project are:

0

- To provide the following educational benefits To provide the following assets -

The project is intended to be complete by: Project Budget

The original budget for this project is:

- Funded as follows: The budget was amended to:

on: - Funded as

The customer for this project is: The Client is The Client Representative is

Roles and Responsibilities

The Client representative is the only person who can authorise changes to the project brief, budget or design, following consultation with the client and the customer. The Lead Designer is The Procurement Supervisor is The Contract Administrator is The Project Manager is The Quality Manager is The On-site supervisor is

The success criteria for the design are The success criteria for the construction are

Pre determined factors relating to the solution are: Constraints on the solution are:

Performance Criteria

Solution

The following communication routes will be established during the design and implementation phase

The key milestones are proj - S~fution identified - Design to Stage lanning Application - Design Freeze - Tenders returned _I

- - -

Ian - Solution Stage 0 Identification of design partner

- By: Lead

Points to learn from the process ?os t I m p I erne n tat i on Review

~e

0 Points to learn from the design Points to learn from the implementation a

isk Plan

The following risks have been identified in the project:

The suggested monitoring action andlor action to minimise the risk is:

Summary of Best ractice on Capital Projects in Schools

Background As part of the Scrutiny of capital projects in schools begun in April 2003 research has been conducted on good practice amongst other authorities, DfES and the Audit Commission. The Internet has been used extensively to access information and recommendations taken from colleagues. In light of the specific nature of the Scrutiny it has not been possible to collate subject specific documentation. By casting a wider search related documents have been collected, which contain reference to the different issues that have been bought to our attention by schools and other internal colleagues. The information from these various sources has then been distilled into this summary. All source documents will be acknowledged and are available for further scrutiny if required.

Summary The key areas that need to be addressed in order to achieve a more consistent delivery of successful capital projects have been summarised below. These areas may be the sole responsibility of one party or general responsibilities; they have been a I located accord i ng l y .

AI I Improved communications strategy to include all stakeholders (inc. children) Project checklist template to be introduced Plan - Plan and keep planning Risk management Preparedness for funding streams to enable co-ordinated action Training on project management techniques Transparency on timescales Project evaluation and feedback

Schools Strategic management of resources - to include whole life costing of capital projects and the associated running costs Contingency planning - structure contracts to hold back proportion until snagging resolved Planning Setting realistic expectations of outputs achievable Project management resource /support skills needed

LEA tions strategy and

lm development to be

BI rchifects to wor ith schools on rief, especially on t

/ma i nten;a rice cost costs of projects

c.1

APPENDIX C

Conclusion

The success of a project can be distilled into three key areas being in place: clear communications strategy, managed expectations and good project management. Many of the areas listed above fall under one of these three headings. However to achieve success is not merely about process but about people. What became apparent from conversations with other boroughs, especially those proposed as role models by the Audit Commission, was that they had established long term, collaborative relationships with colleagues within their organisations and that these were the key success criteria. In the absence of such long relationships we have to rely more heavily on sound established processes and procedures. These should be agreed in partnership with stakeholders and their integration into the process will mitigate many of the difficulties that have arisen in the past.

It is clear that all parties need to develop their skills in managing projects, specifically around planning and risk management. Many of the issues that have arisen could be have been foreseen had their been a strong project manager who had led the parties in identifying all potential risks at the outset. This is not to say that everything would go smoothly but that everybody would have been better prepared. A number of authorities use a checklist to ensure that nothing is missed. I strongly suggest that such a system is introduced. In addition it is imperative that there are regular meetings with the school heads where progress is reviewed and future actions discussed and agreed. The project manager needs to make sure that the schools are constantly involved in the process and given input into reviewing and setting future milestones.

Despite the outcomes of different projects it is important that a system of project evaluation is established. A leading London authority recommended an evaluation of the contractor, consultant and architect as well as internal property officers. These scores were then analysed and a comparison made between years to show school satisfaction with the process. I feel it would be useful to use something similar, especially on the performance on contractors and architects. This is because these providers are invariably from the Council’s approved list of contractors and it is important that the Council monitors work to ensure that standards are maintained.

Acknowledgement & sources: LE3 Camden; LB Kensington and Chelsea, Shropshire County Council, Telford and Wrekin cc; DfES and the Audit Commission. Colleagues in CEA@lslington

Catharine Southern -Projects and Commissioning Manager

.2

AP P EN DOX

SUMMARY OF THE NOTES FRO VISITS AND MEETINGS OF THE REVIEW GROUP

7.30pm 28th March 2003 - MeetinR of the Review Group

Introduction from Norrie Porter (Head of Planning and Capital Prowamme, CEA) Norrie Porter explained the role of CEA in Islington in relation to both the Council’s Education Department and Schools. He also provided an overview of the capital programme development process and outlined further details of the client representative role.

Review SID Members considered the draft Review SID and agreed the following amendments to the objectives:

To consider 4 capital projects in Islington but to also look at practice outside the borough The review to recommend key areas for good practice guidelines rather than develop models of good practice

0 To consider quality, timescales and value for money as part of the focus on key issues

0 To consuitheceive evidence from parents, children and teachers in addition to the other groups

The committee considered the need to review a number of capital projects, which covered a range of sizes, contracts, phases, costs and outcomes. Projects at the following schools were selected:

0 Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School 0 Islington Arts and Media School

Highbury Quadrant School 0 Hanover School

9.30am Gth May 2003 - Sub-Group Visit to Hanover Primarv School The issues raised included:

0 The time, skills and capacity required for the successful management of capital projects

e The additional costs associated with schools in consewation areas and that these are not provided for in budgets.

i m prove men t even and phased

PPENDIX

10.1 5am 1 3th Mav 2003 - Sub-Group Visit to Elizabeth Garrett Anderson The issues raised included:

0 The importance of the good management systems in place and the key staff for the success of the project

0 The good, active working relationship between all parties involved 0 The centre was financed from a number of different funding streams, which

causes a number of problems including insufficient revenue, working ‘hand to mouth’ and auditing difficulties

10.15am 15th Mav 2003 - Sub-Group Visit to Islington Arts & Media School ~ The issues raised included:

0 The school felt it was not in control as the ‘end user’ and that CEA removed items that were in the specification

0 The school was dissatisfied with the Council’s Architects 0 No additional funding has been provided to take account of the higher

maintenance costs eg. Sports hall, dance floor

11.30am 22nd Mav 2003 - Sub-Group Visit to Hiahburv Quadrant The issues raised included:

0 The school felt the Council architect was excellent and ensured that the building was teaching centered

0 There were a number of problem issues that were not planned for. It was easy to solve these as long as there were no financial implications Still some outstanding minor work to be completed - need to ensure that all work is done before the contractors move onto the next job

2.30pm 22nd May 2003 - Sub-Group Visit to Hunaetford The issues raised included:

0 The school is not to full capacity so it was possible to move the classes away from the building work

0 Need a plan for every school site to avoid shortsighted building works e The school was generally not satisfied with the architects and surveyors

gam 3rd Juiv 2003 - Sub-Group Visit to Citv & Islington College The issues raised included:

0 That the school sector is more difficult as it usually involves working around people in the school

e Time is spent consulting staff which pays dividends in improving the design 0 The employment of a clerk of works was seen as crucial - paid for by the

col I eg e

I

I

A Oam Bfh May 2003 - School Council Survey: Hanover The issues raised included:

0 Music lessons and assembly affected due to the noise 0 Lower playground was out of use - staggered breaks but still insufficient room 0 Temporary toilets unsuitable - some children scared to use them

i 1Oarn 14fh May 2003 - School Council Survey: EGA The issues raised included:

0 Pupils informed of the work by posters and architectural drawings 0 Year 11 undertook a video journal as part of their class project work

6.00pm IOfh June 2003 - Meetina of the Review Group

Introduction from Councillor James Kempton (Executive Member for Reaeneration & Education) Councillor Kempton outlined his support for the scrutiny review and the need to learn from previous good and bad experiences of capital projects.

introduction from John Phillips (Assistant Director of Housina, Building Solutions for lslinrrton) John Phillips outlined the role of BSI as a multi-disciplinary construction related consultancy for internal and external clients. He advised that they provided architecture, surveying and engineering services as well as energy advice and site inspections. The issues raised included:

That BSI did not usually make a profit from education capital projects but that the complex and interesting nature of this work was a factor supporting the retention of staff. That BSI was required to return a €500,000 profit per annum back to the Council’s General Fund and the implications of this for its fees

0 That the service may change with the introduction of an ALMO

Reports Back and Discussions from the Sub-Group Visits & School Council Survey (John Phillips, Norrie Porter and Graham Loveland (Assistant Director, Planning) were present.

The issues raised included: MMS

e Complaints from the school include that any aspects of the building were not

ion surrounding the value of and participation in the project’s

of the agreed contract and who as responsible

urpose and that there was poor quality control

artnering Agreement

for its funding

AP PEN DlX

Hanover 0 The importance of early consultation with the community to avoid objections 0 The importance of early discussions with the Council's Planning Departments

in order to minimise difficulties 0 The benefits of undertaking as much work as possible off-site

EGA 0 That it was financially unfeasible to have a full-time project manager for

projects which cost less than f4million 0 The importance of the existing staff already in post to support the project

Highbury Quadrant The need to fully calculate costs at the beginning of the project including allowances for inflation

0 That an Emergency Capital Fund exists but that this is only for extremely urgent works required to keep schools open

0 That work in listed building is more expensive but that this is not taken into account in budgets

0 The benefits achieved from the Clerk of Works meeting with the Headteacher for 10 minutes every day to discuss progress

Hungerford

7.30pm 18fh September 2003 - Meeting of the Review Group

Consideration of Draft Report Report approved subject to minor amendments

PPENDIX E

ocument (SI

Review: Education Capital Proiects

Scrutiny Panel - A Sub-Group of the Overview Committee: Councillors Smith (Chair), Baker, Burgess, Creagh and Valery. Philippa Stobbs, Francis Ayers and Richard Rieser (the Education Co-opted Members)

Po rtfo I io h o I d e F: Co u n ci I io r J a rn e s Kern p to n DirectodHead of Service: Mohammed Mehmet, Frances Carter Project Leader: Catharine Southern

Objectives of the Review

I. To review the experience of capital projects undertaken on school sites in and out of the borough.

2. Develop an analysis of key success factors. 3. Recommend key areas for good practice guidelines.

Scope of the Review

To consider 4 projects, a selection of those which went well and those that have been more problematic. To draw up a strategy to ensure that projects are delivered effectively and efficiently in the future.

To focus in particular on a number of key issues: Partnership with schools

0 Risk assessment, management and planning a Project management including timescales and value for money 0 Quality of finished scheme/output 0 Communication between parties

Contract management

I. Who is to be i Executive Member neration and Education

Regeneration 431 Education (Strategic Projects) Head of CEA Planning 431 Development AD Technical Services in Housing & Staff Heads and Governors of Schools

2, Who is to be consulted Planning and development staff in CEA Architects and Surveyors in Housing Governors and Heads Parents, Pupils and Teachers

3. Who will give evidence Planning and development staff in CEA Architects and Surveyors AD of Planning Headteachers, Governors and Bursars Members Department for Education and Skills

Consultation and Communications Plan

March, April, May 03

P Send Scrutiny PID and brief to Heads and Chairs of Governors, inviting them to give evidence, either verbally or in writing on the specific projects.

P Ask individual Members who are also School Governors to give evidence.

> Members to hear evidence both at scrutiny and at daytime meetings, on site where appropriate.

June/July 03

P Draft report to be issued for consultation with conclusions and key points.

I Kev output: I To be submitted to Committee on:

I 3. Interim Report I I 4. Final Report This SI89 has been approved by the Overview/Review Committee.

Signed Chair:

E.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

IST QF BACKGROUND PAPERS

Minutes of sub-group meeting - A8eh March

Agreed SID

Visits

(a)

(b) Project summaries: EGA, ighbury Quadrant, Hanover, IAMS and

List of suggested questions for visits

H u n g e rfo rd

Notes from sub-group visits to schools and colleges: EGA, Highbury Quadrant, Hanover, IAMS, Hungerford and City & Islington College School Council Surveys: EGA and Hanover

(c)

Minutes of sub-group meeting - loth June

(a) (b) Creating New Schools Pamphlet (c) Education Chapter from UDP (d) CEA Project Initiation Document (e)

Summary of Best Practice on Capital Projects in Schools

Email from Norrie Porter - Value Management Techniques

Submissions from Ian Whyte (EGA, School Bursar)

(a)

(b) (c) (d)

(e)

(f)

‘Forcefield’ - his analysis of the driving and restraining forces, when initially thinking about the scheme Change 2 - a model for the process of organisational change Project Management - digest of sections of a book he co-wrote Structure chart for the management of the project. He notes the meshing of roles eg. Headteacher both sponsor and project director. Gossarams - a mnemonic of the essentials for consideration in the project inception stage An example of the Risks and Issues paperwork for the Steering Grou meeting - ‘Milestones’ monitoring mechanism

) Example agenda of St

inutes sf sub-grou - 1 6 ~ ~ September