Agenda item

Purpose: To update the Committee on the action undertaken since the last meeting and to propose a revised survey of schools.   

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5) giving an update on the action undertaken, since this item was last discussed, to improve property services provided to schools.

One of the resolutions was to explore ways in which schools could have greater responsibility for approving invoices for works undertaken to ensure payments were appropriately made.

Steve Broughton explained that this was being considered by the Maintenance Term Contract (MTC) working group, which had been formed to produce the specification for the new MTC.  This was due for renewal in April 2011.  This group was represented by primary and secondary schools to ensure that the requirements of schools were met where possible.

Unfortunately it was not possible to enhance this process within the existing contract as it was not in the original specification and invoices submitted covered a number of separate items.  In addition, schools could not access the Council’s financial system, Agresso, and authorisation had therefore been given by schools to Property to approve payments.  Andy Walker added that efforts were being made to upgrade Agresso to allow access for schools.  This upgrade was being undertaken alongside work on the new MTC. 

In the event that further work was found to be required in addition to that already requested by a school as part of an emergency call out, then it was the responsibility of the school to sign off the additional work.  This often took place on site with the acceptance that the invoice would be higher without knowing the total cost.  If the work was not of an urgent nature then a quote could be requested before work proceeded.  On receipt of the invoice by Property, the difference to the original order/cost would be discussed with the school to ascertain if this was reasonable and appropriate.  Kier would be challenged if necessary and, if the work was not completed satisfactorily, they would be requested to return to site to complete the work.  If payment was made in such an instance, then the contract warranty offered protection.     

The Select Committee were of the view that the new MTC should enable schools to approve all work undertaken before payment was made.  

The level of minor work provided within the existing MTC had been reduced as previously resolved and the majority of schools were either accessing the handy person service provided by Property or they employed a caretaker.  Although not using the MTC for minor works was a decision for schools to take and could not be insisted upon.

The services offered by Property to schools were part of a fair funding agreement and there was no mark up on the cost. 

It was noted that the majority of school buildings were owned by the Council.  However, the majority of maintenance money was held by schools and concerns were therefore raised that if a school procured work directly and encountered difficulties, this would need to be rectified by the Council.  Steve Broughton explained that this was managed by the Education Assets Team and schools were required to inform this team of work they arranged themselves.  Nick Carter added that the Council also had responsibility for school buildings owned by the school, in order to ensure that the welfare of children was protected.   

It was the intention of the Education Assets Team to continue to monitor work undertaken, which was not the case in all local authorities, but resources did not allow for monitoring of all work commissioned. 

School buildings were surveyed every five years, unless they had major projects ongoing.  These were conducted by an external surveyor.  It was suggested that Governors could be asked to provide a building report on a more frequent basis.

Work on the specification for the new MTC was well advanced, but further procurement work was still required.  This involved procuring a list of contractors who could cover different types of work.  Those included would be able to bid for jobs which would encourage more competitive pricing.  The MTC would be advertised through the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).  The Committee asked to receive the draft specification/an update prior to approval, if timescales allowed.

The decision to not conduct a satisfaction survey at this time was understood by Members to allow time for the introduction of the revised MTC and other Property service improvements to be implemented.  However, the Select Committee requested that the survey be undertaken six months into the new MTC.  This timescale was agreed to by Steve Broughton. 

Steve Broughton advised that there was a reduction in the level of negative feedback received.  It was felt though that the level of buy back into the new MTC would be a good test of school’s opinion of the services provided.  Information on the level of buy back would be provided to the Committee when available. 

RESOLVED that:

(1)       The new MTC should enable schools to approve all work undertaken before payment was made.

(2)       The draft specification/an update would be discussed, prior to approval, at a future meeting of the Committee, if timescales allowed. 

(3)       A satisfaction survey would be undertaken six months after the introduction of the new MTC. 

(4)       Information on the level of buy back into the new MTC would be provided to the Committee when available.