In typical English fashion, the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme has been a target for criticism consistently since its inception in 2003. Apart from the government’s own predictably self-congratulatory publicity, there has been limited celebration of the commitment to invest unprecedented amounts in the educational infrastructure of the country.

Arguably, BSF is a victim of its own 'o’ervaulting ambition'. It certainly gave itself some pretty daunting challenges, including:

1 Seeking to persuade all local authorities in England to accept a centrally imposed model for the procurement of a partner to support their plans to transform secondary education, rather than letting them continue to develop their own particular solutions.
2 Requiring builders and ICT providers to join together to deliver a one-stop-shop solution for councils, so their one partner would design and build schools with ICT an integrated part of the offering.
3 Relying on partnership working between the public and private sectors to deliver the programme where there was little evidence of successful implementation of this approach.
4 Aiming to deliver a number of new schools in a timeframe that allowed no time for councils or bidders to get to grips with the new procurement and delivery models.

I would say the first three of those were desirable aims for all that. I would also argue that the first two have generally been achieved and the third may yet be. It has been a struggle though and the work is by no means done yet.

This is not to say that some of the complaints levelled at the BSF programme are without merit. Many revolve around the funding of the programme. For example, at a time when there is increasing recognition of the importance of sustainable design and construction and the necessity of low carbon occupation of buildings, it is lamentable that the cash is not being committed to ensure that this building programme does not provide a statement of intent by the UK government in terms of sustainability, as well as using this opportunity to educate a generation in the latest developments in this field.

Another complaint is that while the programme’s stated aim is to transform secondary education, the main focus is on buildings and computers, rather than the learners and the teachers. There is no specific funding ring-fenced for change management to ensure that the occupiers make full use of the new expensive facilities. This may be a product of government thinking that the physical environment is a more tangible demonstration of the investment made, but this may mean some of the longer term benefits are lost.

(The lack of) funding of ongoing maintenance of schools which are not procured through the Private Finance Initiative provides another headache. Central government, local authorities and schools themselves are all looking to one another to provide the cash to ensure that the facilities refurbished with BSF monies do not deteriorate through lack of upkeep in the years to come, leading to situations where, in 10-15 years’ time, half of a council’s estate is potentially back in the shabby condition much of it is in now, while the rest has been maintained to its 'as new' condition.

At least these are all issues that are widely recognised in the BSF market and attempts are being made, on a project by project basis, to resolve these as far as possible and depending on local priorities.

One of the more intractable problems, which is a great frustration to almost all involved in BSF, is the time and expense of the procurement process. The EU procurement regulations dictate to a large extent the process that has to be followed and restrict the ability of the procuring authorities to take shortcuts. This is reinforced by the fact that the BSF procurements put in place a long-term partnership which is responsible for spending potentially millions of pounds of public funds; not the sort of agreement a publicly accountable body is going to be comfortable committing to without going through a robust process.
 
That said, to date, neither procuring authorities nor bidders have done themselves many favours. The former are often reluctant to devote appropriate resources to their projects, failing to recognise that investing in doing it right now will save them significant amounts later on, both in terms of running more efficient procurements and in having teams with the skills and knowledge to manage the relationship with the partner for the next ten years with less recourse to external advisors. Bidders, meanwhile, have done little, either during procurements or once in partnership with them, to persuade councils that they do not need to rely on the full rigour of competition.

Despite all those problems, the fact remains that more than 50 new schools have opened to date as part of the BSF programme and hundreds more are imminent. Seeing the difference BSF has made to some of those schools is a helpful and humbling reminder of what the programme is all about and why its existence is to be celebrated.