DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST MADE FOR THIS ITEM:
None
RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Families:
1.
Pursuant to Contract Standing Orders 0.08 and 2.01(b), approved the
commencement of a tendering process for construction works
contractors to deliver Phase 1 and Phase 2 condition works at
Mulberry Primary School.
Reasons for Decision
An estate?wide review
of school condition and compliance had resulted in a business case
and programme delivery plan submission to the September 2020
Capital Board for approval. A number of
programme delivery options had been presented for consideration,
and approval was subsequently granted to proceed with the most
urgent projects in advance of a final decision. This project was
proposed, as it had been prioritised in the 2024–25
Children’s Capital Programme.
Due to significant concerns regarding areas of the building’s condition, Mulberry Primary School had been identified as requiring works to bring its building condition and services infrastructure up to standard.
It was essential to engage a construction works contractor to undertake the condition works required to address the health and safety concerns and priority condition issues that had been identified within the feasibility report.
It was proposed that a
contractor be procured on a single?stage JCT traditional form of
contract using the London Construction Programme Education
Framework or DPS. Soft market engagement had been programmed to be
undertaken in April 2026 to ascertain interest and availability
within the market.
As set out in section
1.2, it had been intended to develop the design and offer two
separate tender opportunities to the market for the procurement of
a construction works contractor. Phase 1 procurement activity was
projected to commence in July 2026, and Phase 2 works had been
scheduled for tender action in March 2027. The works had been
phased to reflect available capital funding.
Alternative Options Considered
Doing nothing: The Council could have decided not to tender the scheme. This might have seemed cost?effective in the short term, but it would not have been a sustainable solution, as the school would not have met current compliance and health and safety standards. This approach would have risked the Council’s ability to fulfil its statutory responsibilities and potentially compromised the safety and integrity of the building, which could have resulted in more serious financial and operational implications in the future.
In?house: There was no
resource within the Council that had the capacity, specialist
expertise, or qualifications to deliver this service.
Inviting open tenders via Contracts Finder: This would have resulted in a protracted tender period and delayed delivery of the project.
Using an alternative public sector DPS: This would not have been compliant with CSO 8.02, given that the LCP Framework or DPS had been deemed suitable for the requirements being sought.