Nobody involved in construction procurement expected anything other than a heavily critical report from the James Review on education capital investment (see News). The £55,000m Building Schools for the Future programme, for example, was widely agreed to have been fundamentally flawed, but even so, the James Review provides a damning judgment on UK construction procurement skills and processes. No side of the procurement process, which is basically condemned as not fit for purpose, escapes deep criticism.
The review is based on extensive consultation including workshops, responses to a call for evidence and face to face interviews. Incredibly, given the breadth of views solicited, James says a high level of consensus about solutions to the problems was found – including on 30 per cent cost savings being achievable.
Although some excellent schools have been provided under Building Schools for the Future, James says better quality schools could have been provided faster as well as 30 per cent cheaper. James found 20 funding routes being used for education capital investment and each was significantly flawed.
The client side comes out of the analysis no better than the supply side and a key recommendation is that a single, strong, expert, intelligent client across the public sector should be created to deal with the construction industry and take responsibility for design and delivery of large projects. Debate over creating a centralised procurement system such as implied here will doubtless spawn a few more reports before it ever comes to fruition.
The capital allocation process was ‘complex, time consuming, expensive and opaque’. The design and procurement process was not designed to deliver either high and consistent quality or low cost; designs were bespoke and the wheel was being reinvented on each project. The main clients for contractors were local authorities and head teachers who were not best equipped to fulfil the client role. Funds were diverted to those adept at winning bids rather than those most in need.
The report said its recommendations would not conflict with the government’s stated policy of increasing local autonomy. Local bodies would decide on the type of investment needed and how it should be prioritised, it said. The responsibility for using and managing new and improved facilities however would be wholly devolved.
Some general good may come of this review if James’ criticisms are taken on board. According to the James analysis, Building Schools for the Future never stood a chance of delivering the required quality of schools on time and to budget – every single project had to run the gauntlet of a complex and hostile regulatory and planning environment, which will strike a chord with all involved in getting any construction project off the ground.
Reform is required throughout the system, whether from taking existing best practice and ensuring that it becomes commonplace, or through root and branch reform. Reform has to be addressed as a matter of urgency, the report says. Can it happen without a hugely time consuming debate on centralism versus local democracy? Time will tell.
Nick Barrett
Editor