A flagship DfE programme to rebuild or refurbish 277 schools is “in doubt”, the body responsible for helping to deliver large government projects has warned.
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) today warned that “urgent action” is needed to address problems besetting the second phase of the government’s Priority Schools Building Programme (PSBP).
The scheme was introduced by the coalition government in 2011 after Michael Gove controversially scrapped Building Schools for the Future.
Today’s annual report from the IPA also reveals that the first phase of PSBP, which is rebuilding or refurbishing 214 schools, is being hampered by a lack of interest from builders.
It says: “We continue to experience a lack of interest from contractors in the new batches of schools being released into procurement and contractors continue to seek additional funding.
“This has resulted in delays against our internal delivery programme, expenditure slipping backwards and an increase in the overall cost to deliver the programme.”
The IPA has given the second phase of PSBP an “amber/red” rating, meaning that “successful delivery of the project is in doubt, with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas.”
The rating means that the IPA believes that “urgent action is needed to address these problems and/or assess whether resolution is feasible”.
In its commentary on the rating, the DfE cites “growing evidence of a significant increase in demand for construction capacity” which is creating cost pressures to delivering PSBP2 on time and within budget.
It adds: “This is being addressed as more detailed feasibility assessments are made of the individual projects.”
The government originally planned to spend £77 million on PSBP2 in 2016-17, but today’s report reveals that it underspent by more than £50 million.
The DfE says this was due to the feasibility studies being more complex than for the first phase, “which meant they lasted longer”.
The report says this has been addressed by a “major realignment” in spring 2017, which saw a number of feasibility studies get under way at the same time, which is said is “reducing the time deficit and leading to relatively easier transitions in procurement and construction”.
