It takes two to really tango

Better procurement
Circumstance led to two-stage tendering on Luton’s Barnfield Academies but the system worked for ArchitecturePLB, says Nick Mirchandani

Schools procurement and the waste involved in the Building Schools for the Future programme have been much debated since it was cancelled 18 months ago. Since then, time for the academies bid process has been halved, from a 12-14 week initial design stage (equivalent to RIBA stage D) to just 6-7 weeks. But while this saves time, it does so at the expense of design quality and fails to address the most fundamental waste in the process: that for every school delivered one Stage D design is simply ‘thrown away’. It would make more sense to halve the number of designs than the time.

Such an approach was the basis for the RIBA’s 2005 ‘Smart PFI’ initiative, which sought to deliver design quality while allowing the benefits of early contractor involvement. Two alternative models were proposed but both entailed the preparation of only one design, either by the client in advance of going to market, or by a preferred bidder selected on grounds other than design. Although the initiative was rejected at the time, ArchitecturePLB has recently delivered two new academies under a version of Smart PFI that warrants further consideration, particularly now PFI has been confirmed as the funding mechanism for the new Priority Schools Building Programme.

Smart move
In October 2007 ArchitecturePLB was selected by Luton Borough Council from the original consultant-led academies framework and invited to submit an expression of interest in providing design services for two new 1,450-place secondary schools. After submitting our team credentials we presented our approach and initial thoughts at an interview. On the basis of this and a fee tender we were selected to start the design from RIBA Stage B+, appointed by the local authority and with direct, unrestricted access to the school and sponsor in developing the brief and design.

What made the process unusual was that Luton was doing its BSF procurement at the same time. For the sake of speed, we were appointed directly by the local authority for the early stages and then novated to the preferred BSF bidder from RIBA Stage E. This gave us the best of both worlds. Instead of the competitive design process of BSF, with duplicated effort and limited access, we could engage directly and openly with the schools to develop the brief, agree priorities and explore alternative options as the preferred designs emerged.

At the same time, from RIBA Stage C onwards we also liaised with the two shortlisted BSF contractors that would be pricing the two academies as part of their overall bid, alongside their own sample schemes. This allowed them to inform and validate our emerging proposals and to add value by influencing the proposals as they developed, while at the same time ensuring competitive selection. Although unusual at the time, and emerging as an expedient response to a specific situation, this procurement route is actually no more than a version of two-stage competitive tendering described in the RIBA’s Smart PFI proposals.

Useful lessons
The result is two new schools, the designs for which benefited from intense and unlimited dialogue between designers and end users, but which also achieved the cost and time benefits of early contractor involvement. Our relationships with all three clients – school/sponsor, authority and contractor – remained open, transparent and positive throughout the project, in a way that is simply not possible under a competitive design process, with its limited dialogue and restricted design time.

Critically, we could also engage with a much larger number and wider range of stakeholders than is possible under the commercial confidentiality restrictions of a competitive design process, including staff, students, governors, parents and the local community. Compared to BSF or standard academies procurement we were involved much earlier in the process, developing the brief from first principles and allowing a truly iterative design process whereby the brief can respond to emerging proposals and vice versa.

If waste is really to be removed from schools procurement, it is essential not just to shorten the process but to stop throwing away half or more of the designs developed. The lesson from the Luton academies, though not PFI projects themselves, is that there are already existing, proven alternatives that protect design time and quality while also reducing waste. These should be explored before another £2bn is spent on schools under PSBP. To deliver ill-considered or poor quality designs as a result of a flawed procurement process would be the greatest waste of all.

Nick Mirchandani is director at ArchitecturePLB