Derbyshire in plea over BSF contract

Council wants to use existing framework contract PfS wants to use standard model.

Derbyshire County Council is at the centre of a parliamentary debate over its plans to deliver its £250m Building Schools for the Future (BSF) scheme using a variant model.

The scheme, which was due out next February, has been delayed as the council tries to convince DfES and Partnerships for Schools (PfS) that it should be allowed to use its own delivery model.

Derbyshire wants to roll out its first phase, worth £77m, using its existing capital works framework contract. However, PfS wants the council to use the standard model, which involves setting up a Local Education Partnership (LEP) with a private sector consortium.

Derbyshire is arguing that, as one of only five councils in England with a four-star excellence rating from the Audit Commission for its services, it is fully entitled to use its existing procurement methods to deliver its BSF scheme. However, recent guidance issued by PfS makes it clear that variant models are not welcome.

A delegation from the county council, led by Dennis Skinner and other local Labour MPs, recently met with schools minister Jim Knight, to argue their case. Knight said the MPs had made a strong case, particularly for using the framework to deliver the first phase. However, he added: "I must weigh it against other arguments on precedent and project risk." He also said he would discuss it with the Education Secretary Alan Johnson.

Derbyshire County Council currently delivers its schools building programme using a framework agreement that covers all its capital works. The framework, set up in 2002, runs for five years with an option to extend it to 2010. The framework contractors for schemes over £100,000 are Mansell, Wild Goose and GF Tomlinson.

A Derbyshire County Council spokeswoman said: "The matter is still under consideration within the council."

However, potential bidders are becoming increasingly frustrated with the delay to the BSF programme, which has seen only one BSF scheme close since it was launched three years ago. One said: "I can understand PfS not wanting every council coming up with its own unique model, but when a council has a system that works why not let them get on with it?"

Others are hoping the new chief executive Tim Byles, who will replace Richard Bowker in November, will speed up the process by forging better links with local authorities.

In a letter to Contract Journal this week, Byles reiterated his support for LEPs, adding: "Where a local authority has pre-existing frameworks or estate-wide PFI contracts already in place, then it has always been the case that the contractual requirements of a LEP may not be suitable. It is also true that the development of a new procurement vehicle, such as a LEP, will require a minimum value of work to make it economically viable. However, these instances are very much in the minority and I'm sure the market will be pleased to hear this too."

PfS recently launched a much more prescriptive regime for local authorities hoping to enter Waves Four to Six, which clearly discourages variant models. The organisation was unable to comment.

[Contract Journal, 16 August 2006, p. 3]