Building Schools for the Future: Strategic Board meeting
Minutes of meeting held on 18th May 2007 at 11am
Present
Cllr Sarah Richardson(Chair) / SR / Cabinet Member for Children’s Services
Paul Doherty / PD / Director for BSF
Penny Holden / PH / Consultant Director for Schools, WCC
Steve Farnsworth / SF / Director for Schools, WCC
Elizabeth Phillips / EP / Head Teacher St Marylebone School
Jo Shuter / JS / Head Teacher Quintin Kynaston School
Rachel Allard / RA / Head Teacher Grey Coat Hospital
Patrick Lees / PL / Chair of Governors Quintin Kynaston School
Nick Bell / NB / Director of Finance, WCC
Penny Badcoe / PB / Procurement Manager BSF
Tony Benton / AB / Assistant Director for BSF
Antony Moore / AM / ICT Adviser BSF
Sue Wooldridge / SW / BSF and Academies Team
Paul Barber / PBr / Director of Education Archdiocese of Westminster
Tom Peryer / TP / Director of Education CE Diocese of London
Victoria Baker / VB / Project Officer BSF
Mary Loughnan / ML / Head Teacher QEII School
Regan Watkinson / RW / Deputy Head Teacher College Park
Roy Blackwell / RB / United Westminster Schools
Caroline Saffell / CS / 4ps
John Davies / JD / ICT Consultant
Nigel Wisden / NW / Foundation Governor St. George’s School
Alex Thomas / AT / Head Teacher St Augustine’s School
Chris Wright / CW / LSC
Apologies
Peter Rogers / PR / Chief Executive, WCCJulie Jones / JJ / Deputy Chief Executive (Children’s Services), WCC
Frank Thomas / FT / Project Manager BSF
Martin Morton / MM / Governor St George’s School
Liam Neville / LN / IT Facilities & Operations Manager, WCC
Sal Wilson / SWi / Partnership for Schools
Sunil Patel / SP / Project Director PFS
Elizabeth Doyle / ED / Deputy Head St Marylebone/ICT Subgroup
1. Welcome & apologies
Apologies as recorded above.
Paul Doherty welcomed Patrick Lees to the meeting representing the ICT sub-group
2. Minutes of previous meeting and matters arising
2.1 PD noted he had written to the Board on LCVAP and DFC (included in Board papers).
2.2 Risk register: item 6.20 has been reworded and was agreed by the Board.
2.3 PD noted that the Secretary of State had now signed the funding agreement for the ARK King Solomon Academy. If this had not been signed it could have caused a risk to the BSF project.
3 Director’s Report
3.1 Design development for the Sample Schools has continued well although RB expressed some concern that deadlines had been very tight and not always realistic. GK/EP agreed it had been a challenge but recent meetings with Bidders have been fruitful and very positive.
3.2 Non-sample schools noted encouraging progress. ML thanked SW for her time and commitment in working with her at College Park.
3.3 Pimlico Options Appraisal; PD noted that WCC has given an absolute commitment to close down issues where possible and avoid risk to the BSF project. RB requested that WCC should write to his Chair of Trustees with an update. PD agreed that WCC would write to the Full Board to note a) the LA’s commitment, and b) the actions being taken to mitigate the risks.
4. ICT Report
4.1 AM summarised the report (despatched with Board papers) and explained the principles of the MLE.
4.2 AM explained that we were not sure previously that the MLE contract would not be within the LEP. PL noted that perhaps PfS could have advised on this earlier, but added that it has been a time-consuming and difficult process as BECTA themselves have spent a long time trying to minimise the risk.
4.3 EP asked about Service Level Agreements which AM agreed could be shared with the Board.
4.3 LGfL’s Business Continuity Plans; AM explained that current issues to do with speed are not really related to the MLE. He added that there are three main server cores around London which assist with continuity in the event of a failure. NB noted that the risks need to be worked through but seem to be manageable.
4.4 PL added that there is an enormous risk by not partnering with the London MLE solution. In the last 5 years connectivity through the LGfL has been very good – a known and reliable factor!
4.5 CS explained that by separating responsibility for ICT it might compromise the opportunity to be truly transformational – the primary goal of BSF. We could also consider asking the Bidder to communicate directly with Fronter when problems arise. RA stressed need to avoid one company blaming another.
4.6 PB explained that any alternative solution will be complex legally and will delay the project by 3 months given the time needed to discuss and agree price of risk and contracts. Also if Bidders price for the risk this will lead to an increase in the price of the tender. NB estimated a £6m cost of delay.
4.7 AM explained that practically, from the schools’ viewpoint, the managed ICT service would act as a one-stop shop. If the ICT provider can’t fix the problem it would then be passed on to WCC to resolve. N.B in contractual terms the line will rest with WCC.
4.8 AM noted the MLE contract was expected to be signed on Tuesday 21 May. It was agreed that the key specification points and relevant terms of office of the contract could be shared with the Board and Bidders.
4.9 All agreed they were clear on the risks and the benefits. AM offered to facilitate an opportunity for the Board to view a demonstration of the MLE in operation. Board agreed that as long as the educational benefits of the LGfL contract outweigh the separation of contracts from the LEP then the BSF project should progress with current ICT proposals.
5. Procurement Report
5.1 PB explained that the Competitive Dialogue process requires us to close down issues and following closure of the dialogue only fine tuning and clarification are permitted (as long as there is no impact on price and risk).
5.2 PB summarised the issues outstanding around ICT, sample school designs and some legal/contractual issues which should be finalised at the dialogue and clarification meeting on Monday.
5.3 It may be necessary to delay receipt of the tender for another week to allow Bidders time to do the necessary drafting and printing given the immense size of the tender documentation and the lateness in closing down some of the issues. A meeting with PfS on Tuesday will take place to discuss formally closing the dialogue.
6. Risk Register
6.1 Risk item 6.20 was re-tabled and agreed as were two new additions to the agenda which reflect the discussions on ICT shown above.
7. Project Plan
7.1 VB explained how it could be possible for the project to accelerate in the autumn if planning permission was granted at the first application. Given ongoing meetings with planners this could bring forward building works to begin before Christmas 2007.
6.1 Following the Procurement report and the possibility of slipping a week in the current phase, VB explained the implications and impact on the programme of evaluation meetings, which was considered to be minimal. VB offered to provide revised dates for the first week of meetings ASAP if the Board agreed to the proposed slippage.
7 No Other Business
8 Date of next meeting - Friday 15th June at 11.00-12.30 Committee room 6
3