I thank Mr. O'Brien. We will deal with Chapters 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 separately. Chapter 7.2 reads:
7.2 Allocation and Prioritisation of Expenditure for School Buildings
Background
Overall Allocations
Table 7.8 shows the capital allocations for Primary and Second-Level School buildings in 2002. It illustrates how the provision evolved during the course of the year, the eventual outturn and accrued expenditure at year-end.
Table 7.8 Capital Allocation for Primary and Second-Level School Buildings
|
Primary
|
Second Level
|
Total
|
|
€m
|
€m
|
€m
|
Revised Estimates Volume
|
153.64
|
183.73
|
337.37
|
Supplementary Estimates
|
19.00
|
(12.0)
|
7.00
|
Total provision
|
172.64
|
171.73
|
344.37
|
Vote Expenditure
|
172.79
|
171.35
|
344.14
|
Accrued Expenditure
|
11.49
|
4.92
|
16.41
|
Total Expenditure Incurred
|
184.28
|
176.27
|
360.55
|
Prioritisation of Projects
I examined the adequacy of the Department of Education's systems for planning and managing the provision of second level school accommodation in a Value for Money Report published in October 1996. One of the key issues dealt with in the report was the Prioritisation of Projects. I believe that my summary findings on the question of prioritisation are applicable to both the First and Second Level School Buildings Programmes and remain as valid today as in 1996. At that time I said:
·Since the total estimated cost of projects approved in principle exceeds the available annual funding, choices have to be made about which projects have the highest priority.
Building projects are currently recommended for funding on the basis of consensus judgments by Department officials having regard to a number of factors including the availability, adequacy and safety of existing accommodation. However, no formal set of fixed quantified criteria exists.
A list of recommended projects is submitted for senior management and ministerial approval and amendments may be made to the selection at this stage.
·Without a proper prioritisation system based on predetermined objective criteria, the Department cannot demonstrate that the building programme addresses the areas of greatest need among the many projects proposed. While this report was being finalised, the Department indicated that it had commenced the development of a formal prioritisation procedure involving a points system based on relevant factors for ranking projects.
I also noted that as far back as 1988 an interdepartmental committee had recommended that:
·.....a clearly defined order of priorities should be established for all school building projects and that no project should proceed to any stage of architectural planning or construction except by reference to the priority list. While the report acknowledged that there might be difficulties in drawing up criteria by which relative priorities would be established, it considered that such a system was absolutely essential in allocating scarce resources in an equitable way among the large number of projects on hands.
In January 2003 the Minister for Education and Science published details of criteria for prioritising largescale primary and post-primary building projects on the Department's website.
Audit Examination
Early this year the issue of how capital allocations for school buildings are prioritised and approved was the subject of much media attention. It was suggested that funding apparently earmarked for specific named projects which did not ultimately proceed, had been used inappropriately. I decided to examine the matter focusing in particular on the Primary Schools building programme.
Planned and Actual Expenditure on Primary Schools Building Programme in 2002
Planned expenditure on this programme comprises in any one-year three major components:
·Commitments under existing contracts
·A programme of major works, which are likely to extend beyond the year in question and in respect of which decisions have yet to be taken
·Provision for remediation, site acquisition and smaller scale works, which are likely to be fully paid for in the year in question.
Table 7.9 shows the planned and actual expenditure across the entire programme for first-level capitalworks for 2002.
Table 7.9 Projected and actual expenditure for building, equipment and furnishing of national schools 2002
Expenditure heading grouped by sub-programme
|
Proposed allocation December 2001
|
Approved capital programmeApril 2002*
|
Actual expenditure 2002
|
|
€m
|
€m
|
€m
|
Committed
|
|
|
|
Contractual commitments/fees/final payments
|
90.7
|
95.5
|
89.5
|
Subtotal
|
90.7
|
95.5
|
89.5
|
2002 Major Works sub-programme
|
|
|
|
List 1 Projects
|
16.0
|
|
10.4
|
List 2 Projects
|
15.6
|
|
5.4
|
Projects not originally in December 2001 proposal
|
—
|
|
4.0
|
Subtotal
|
31.6
|
28.0
|
19.8
|
Minor and Emergency sub-programmes
|
|
|
|
Purchase of Sites
|
6.0
|
5.0
|
7.6
|
High Support (special education facilities)
|
3.0
|
3.8
|
3.2
|
Devolved Grant
|
2.8
|
5.26
|
5.6
|
Temporary Accommodation and Emergency Works
|
12.7
|
36.0
|
40.1
|
Asbestos Related Remedial Works
|
6.3
|
6.0
|
5.8
|
Inventory of Accommodation Pilot Project
|
0.9
|
0.95
|
0.5
|
Miscellaneous (Furniture etc.)
|
—
|
—
|
0.7
|
Subtotal
|
31.7
|
57.01
|
63.5
|
Total
|
154
|
180.51
|
172.8
|
The delay in launching the programme was factored into these estimates.
The Priority List in December 2001
My examination found that in December 2001 the Department had recorded the priorities assigned to applications for capital grants under the major works sub-programme, on a list-based system. Five lists reflecting the relative priority of projects were drawn up.
On the following lists, the estimated costs of individual projects that have not gone to tender as yet have not been included because to do so could compromise the competitive bidding process and potentially damage prospects of obtaining value for money on the projects 58. Similar considerations apply in two cases where work may have to be retendered 59. Therefore only aggregate totals are given for each list.
Projects which went ahead in 2002 are shaded.
List 1 — Projects that can proceed to construction in 2002 as tenders have been received (decision to go to tender taken in Autumn 2001) (10 Schools — €18.1million).
Table 7.10 List 1
School
|
County
|
€
|
School
|
County
|
€
|
G.S. Eiscair Riada
|
Offaly
|
3,480,496
|
An A Tadhg O Murchú
|
Cork
|
1,097,288
|
St Mary’s, Baldoyle
|
Dublin
|
635,000
|
Scoil Íosagáin CBS
|
Limerick
|
482,500
|
Scoil Eoin, Kilbarrack
|
Dublin
|
938,199
|
St Kevin’s Bray
|
Wicklow
|
1,951,110
|
Killashee, Naas
|
Kildare
|
1,420,977
|
Celbridge NKSP
|
Kildare
|
4,133,194
|
St Patrick’s Special
|
Kilkenny
|
3,174,345
|
St Bernadette’s Special
|
Cork
|
763,112
|
Aggregate Total for Schools which went ahead in 2002 €18,076,221
|
List 2 — Very Urgent High Priority projects in respect of which it is proposed to invite tenders (16 School — €20.3m).
Table 7.11 List 2
School
|
County
|
€
|
School
|
County
|
€
|
St Paul’s New
|
Cork
|
*
|
St Theresa’s
|
Longford
|
*
|
Cabbas, Ashton
|
Cork
|
1,015,790
|
St Joseph’s Special
|
Galway
|
*
|
St Killian’s
|
Cork
|
*
|
St Nicholas
|
Galway
|
*
|
Glenahulla
|
Cork
|
**
|
St Fergal’s Bray
|
Wicklow
|
380,921
|
St. Anthony’s
|
Mayo
|
2,539,476
|
St Mary’s Trim
|
Meath
|
888,816
|
St. Joseph’s/Eoin
|
Offaly
|
2,886,396
|
Our Lady of Fatima
|
Wexford
|
*
|
St. Kieran’s Glasnevin
|
Dublin
|
1,904,607
|
Knockconan
|
Monaghan
|
*
|
St. Catherine’s Donore Ave
|
Dublin
|
1,318,272
|
Sallins
|
Kildare
|
*
|
Aggregate Total €20,297,285
|
List 3 — Urgent projects ready for tender that can only proceed to tender and construction if substituted for projects on list 2 (17 schools — €36.7m).
Table 7.12 List 3
School
|
County
|
€
|
School
|
County
|
€
|
Gaelscoil An Mhuilinn
|
Westmeath
|
*
|
Scoil Treasa Donore Ave
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Sacred Heart, Huntstown
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Roxboro
|
Roscommon
|
*
|
Naas New School
|
Kildare
|
*
|
Mullinahone
|
Tipperary
|
*
|
Prosperous
|
Kildare
|
*
|
G.S. Tiobrad Árainn
|
Tipperary
|
*
|
Scoil Nais Mhuire
|
Carlow
|
889,633
|
Marino School (spec)
|
Wicklow
|
*
|
Holy Spirit J/S
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Scoil Íosagáin, Hospital
|
Limerick
|
1,440,935
|
St Joseph’s Special
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Knockea
|
Limerick
|
1,642,564
|
St Joseph, Coolock
|
Dublin
|
2,137,729
|
Cappoquinn Convent
|
Waterford
|
**
|
Sc N Finnin, Finglas
|
Dublin
|
*
|
|
|
|
Aggregate Total €36,700,432
|
List 4 — Projects that will be ready for invitation to tender in the coming months but which can only proceed to tender and construction if substituted for projects on list 2 (34 schools — €37.8million).
Table 7.13 List 4
School
|
County
|
€
|
School
|
County
|
€
|
Scoil na Mainstreach
|
Kildare
|
*
|
St.Edward’s Ballytivnan
|
Sligo
|
*
|
Ballymore Eustace
|
Kildare
|
*
|
S Pádraig Naofa
|
Wicklow
|
*
|
Roberstown
|
Kildare
|
*
|
SN Pádraig, Cranford
|
Wexford
|
*
|
Scoil Mochua
|
Kildare
|
*
|
Riverchapel
|
Wexford
|
*
|
Scoil Mhuire, Ballymany
|
Kildare
|
1,178,097
|
Gaelscoil Loch Garman
|
Wexford
|
*
|
Lucan Educate Together
|
Dublin
|
3,809,214
|
SN Clochar Mhuire
|
Wexford
|
*
|
Virgin Mary, Ballymun
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Flowerhill
|
Meath
|
*
|
St Killian’s Tallaght
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Réalt na Maidine
|
Cork
|
*
|
Lady of Con, Donnycarney
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Scoil Chríost Ri
|
Cork
|
*
|
John Bosco Navan Rd
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Rathpeacon
|
Cork
|
2,176,172
|
S Cíaráin, Donnycarney
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Aghina
|
Cork
|
*
|
Georges Hill, Smithfield
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Scoil an Croí Ró Naofa
|
Cork
|
1,863,231
|
St Vincent’s Glasnevin
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Tullyallen
|
Louth
|
*
|
St Catherine’s Dominican Convent
|
Dublin
|
332,000
|
Raphoe Central
|
Donegal
|
*
|
St Francis Senior/Junior
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Cnoch na Naomh Gortahork
|
Donegal
|
*
|
St Vincent De Paul
|
Dublin
|
*
|
Ardagh
|
Mayo
|
796,970
|
Grange
|
Roscommon
|
*
|
St Colman’s
|
Kilkenny
|
*
|
Aggregate Total €37,759,726
|
List 5 — Projects that are expected to be ready to proceed to tender later in 2002 but which can only proceed to tender and construction if substituted for projects on list 2 (44 schools — €64.3million).
In effect, the lists identified projects capable of being approved in the course of 2002, if funds were available. The total estimated cost of completing all projects on the lists amounted to €177million as against the €31.6million originally allocated as the projected spend on List 1 and List 2 projects.
Developments During 2002
Departmental papers indicate that in February 2002 the Minister approved the 16 projects in List 2 to proceed and instructed that a further 12 projects were to proceed to tender and construction. This increased the total projected expenditure on the 28 projects to some €31.5million. Final Ministerial clearance for the programme of expenditure was not given until April 2002.
Departmental papers show that the Minister advised the Building Unit in April 2002 that an extra €15million with a possibility of a further €4million, would become available for the Primary sector. The Dáil voted a Supplementary Estimate on 10 December 2002 providing an additional €19million for the programme. The extra funds provided for the Primary capital programme represented reallocated savings achieved elsewhere in the Education ‘envelope' of funds. €12million of the €19million came from a reduction in the provision for capital works in the Post-Primary building programme as a result of projects proceeding more slowly than anticipated.
By the end of 2002, expenditure on the 10 schools on list 1 was 65% of that planned in December 2001. Only the 8 schools highlighted in list 2 had proceeded and these had incurred only 35% of the available funding. A further 16 major projects were started and incurred some expenditure during the year. Five of these are highlighted on List 3, six on List 4, one on List 5 (Tineteriffe NS Limerick €1,065,945). The remaining four schools had not featured on any of the December 2001 lists and the contract amount relating to these are as follows:
· Star of the Sea, Cork
|
€401,995
|
· St Paul’s COPE, Cork
|
€443,671
|
· Killnasona NS, Longford
|
€622,071
|
· Gael Scoil Philib Barun, Waterford
|
€429,113.
|
Total expenditure on projects commenced in 2002 under the major works sub-programme fell short of the €31.6 earmarked by some €11.8million. In contrast to this, expenditure on the minor and emergency subprogrammes exceeded the planned level of expenditure by €31.8million.
Expenses of €11.5million relating to the programme as a whole had been incurred, but not yet paid for, by the Department at the end of the year. This accrued expenditure is made up as follows:
· Minor projects —
|
€3.8million
|
· Temporary accommodation —
|
€1.7million
|
· Expenses relating to major projects —
|
€6.0million
|
· In construction at 1/1/2002 —
|
€1.37million
|
· Projects from lists 1 and 2 —
|
€0.46million
|
· Went to construction in 2002 and not onlists 1 and 2 —
|
€2.39million
|
· Pre-construction costs —
|
€1.78million
|
Expenditure on the post-primary building programme resulted in savings of €12million which was used to provide additional funding for the primary programme. Details of the projected and actual expenditure is given in Table 7.14.
Table 7.14 Projected and actual expenditure Post Primary 2002
Expenditure heading
|
Proposed allocation December 2001
|
Actual expenditure2002
|
|
€m
|
€m
|
Contractual commitments/Dust extraction etc.
|
79.1
|
80.0
|
Fees
|
15.0
|
26.0
|
Prefabs
|
3.8
|
4.8
|
Furniture and Equipment
|
9.0
|
11.0
|
Remediation Programmes
|
3.3
|
9.5
|
Large-scale Projects (including sites)
|
56.3
|
25.6
|
Small-scale Projects (including sites)
|
14.2
|
14.5
|
Contingency
|
3
|
—
|
Total
|
183.7
|
171.4
|
The Department's Response
Prioritisation System
In response to my enquiries regarding the prioritisation system currently in operation the Accounting Officer said there is a tension between getting maximum impact from the funding allocated and remaining within budget in the absence of ring fenced multi-annual allocations. Furthermore the annual building programme has a number of elements or sub-programmes to be prioritised before a preliminary allocation is made for the major works sub-programme. The process is not set in stone at the outset, as emergency demands particularly within the smaller scale works sub-programme, are difficult to predict.
The major works sub-programme is the multi-annual component of the programme, while minor and emergency works are, by and large, approved on the basis that they will be paid for within the current year's budget. While the major works programme has a higher public profile, judgments on allocations for items such as emergency health and safety works can weigh heavily in the initial prioritisation of the budget allocation.
Background to existing prioritisation system
The Accounting Officer said that following my VFM report his Department had engaged an international expert and consulted widely on the most appropriate prioritisation scheme to adopt. While all of theparties consulted during the preparation of the expert's report endorsed the need for a more transparent system based on the application of objective criteria, many considered that it would be unlikely that a points system (as referred to in the VFM report) would be appropriate for the education sector. Many of the parties recognised that, no matter how objective and scientific the criteria were, there would be a need for decision makers to exercise their professional and/or technical judgment at some point in the process. The expert, in the event, did not recommend a points-based system. The expert's report, delivered in 1999, formed the basis of the prioritisation system that has been put in place.
Overview of the existing prioritisation system
These criteria are:
·The rationale underpinning the project
·The scale of project in terms of area (square metres) and pupils benefiting
·The extent of recent prior investment in the school
·The target date for completion of the project
·The cost of the project
·An analysis of technical considerations, if any, presenting.
In the context of limited resources, clearly only those projects that command the highest priority banding within their respective categories can fall to be considered for inclusion in the expenditure plans for any particular year. Where a number of projects from within the same category and all carrying the same priority band are competing for inclusion the senior management staff within the Planning and Building Unit are required to make professional judgments based on all known facts and having regard to the published criteria.
In an effort to establish the possible usefulness of a points based system the criteria for post primary projects were assigned numerical values on a pilot basis as an exercise to effectively shadow and potentially support the broader banding system. While the experiment illustrated that points could be an aid to the overall management process, the creation of a points system per se would not or could not obviate the need to exercise sound judgment cognizant of all relevant factors and based on past experiences of managing an annual programme.
Changing priorities
In response to my questions as to how projects could acquire a higher priority status the Accounting Officer stated that a range of circumstances and conditions can induce such a change. Key considerations would be the emergence of:
·New or additional information concerning the proposed scope of the project
·New conditions or circumstances in the school, for example, enrolments growing more rapidly than had been forecast.
He considered that, logically, it would be expected that a project would move to a higher priority band as the time scale for its completion nears.
Confidence in the new systems
I also asked him how his Department can be confident that the existing prioritisation systems are:
·Demonstrably transparent and
·Target funding to schools most in need.
In his reply he stated that he believed that it was reasonable to say that the broad welcome afforded to the publication (on the website) by his Department of the criteria and lists of projects in 2003 reflected a high degree of confidence among school communities and education partners in the system. Publication represents a significant measure to assuage any disquiet that may have existed regarding prioritization within the programme. Furthermore the current Minister for Education and Science has stated publicly, in unequivocal terms, that the programme would be managed in a totally fair and objective manner.
He pointed out that a key challenge facing the Planning and Building Unit of his Department, was how to adapt the existing banding system to respond to the ever-changing educational landscape. In the seven or so years since the VFM study, the rights of parents, on behalf of their children, to access nondenominational education and education delivered exclusively through the medium of the Irish language are now underpinned by statute. The concept of providing for diversity/choice, and not simply on the basis of available places regardless of ethos/ characteristic/ spirit, is now an unequivocal feature of the school planning landscape. This provokes tensions in prioritisation and requires judgment calls about how to balance, for example, the needs of a recently recognised school (the overwhelming majority of recently recognised primary schools are under the patronage of Educate Together or follow the ethos/ tradition of Gaelscoileanna) against the refurbishment needs, say, of a long-established school under church patronage.
A 20% increase in primary teacher numbers over the past few years has increased dramatically the basic accommodation deficit in schools that are otherwise structurally sound and has added further to the complexity of the task of prioritisation. The expansion of the further education sector through the delivery of PLC courses and right of access to second chance education also contribute to demands for school places, accommodation and equipment. Attention must also be given to the changing role of the church in relation to trusteeship, and the impetus for rationalisation, particularly at post-primary level. All of these issues present an ongoing challenge for the Department to make consistent, and as rational as possible, decisions in the most transparent manner.
The Accounting Officer stated that the prioritisation system currently in use works to ensure that, in respect of all identified applications, funding is targeted at those most in need. He pointed out however, the reality that the system is historically a reactive application-based one and by definition, cannot ensure that those in greatest need are targeted. A further day-to-day concern for those attempting to prioritise fairly is to ensure that, where a project becomes the subject of a concerted media campaign due to proactivity on the part of stakeholders, it does not supplant a more valid project.
The entire organisation and structures of the Planning and Building Unit are being re-focused to permit more proactive planning by disaggregating to a much greater extent the planning function from the operational or delivery function. This will permit the planners to plan in a more coherent and strategic manner, drawing together first and second-level needs. The ultimate aim is to provide for each county or region an educational development plan that will identify and map the future strategic shape of the educational landscape, thus informing critical investment decisions in a demonstrably public way.
The Accounting Officer felt it was worth pointing out that an inventory of accommodation has been piloted in County Kildare and has amassed an extensive range of information concerning the state of schools in the county. This has already proven to be an immense aid to decision making. The Department has just completed an evaluation of the pilot phase. The second phase of the inventory is about to commence and when completed, should prove equally effective in guiding decisions relating to the targeting of resources.
Primary major works programme
I had asked why certain primary schools projects published on lists 3, 4 and 5 on the Department's website in April 2002 and some not listed, had progressed to construction ahead of others on list 2.
The Accounting Officer said that the identified projects were "ready for tender", "would be ready for tender" and "expected to be ready for tender" respectively in 2002 and, accordingly, were at an advanced stage. He pointed out that for projects to advance to construction in 2002, the architectural planning stages would have needed to have been at a very advanced stage and that it would not be possible to significantly fast track individual projects. He further stated that ultimately, the level of funding available was the critical limiting factor for progressing all projects.
In regard to the specific underspends on lists 1 and 2, the Accounting Officer pointed out that the draft programme for the year 2002 was prepared in December 2001. However, the programme was not cleared until late in April 2002. The loss of these 4 months in approving projects resulted in an actual spend in the year on new works projects of €19.8million compared to €31.6million originally estimated. However, €10.4million was spent on these projects in the first four months of 2003.
He further stated that the total cost of projects was accurately estimated. The 30 projects that proceeded from lists 1 to 5 had an estimated cost of €50.41million. The actual cost of these projects was €49.63million.
Temporary accommodation and emergency works
In regard to the significant increase in expenditure on the temporary accommodation and emergency works programmes he pointed out that these programmes are demand driven. Applications for such funding are typically made after the estimates have been prepared and accordingly it is difficult to be absolutely accurate in forecasting demand. The Building Unit has to rely on the experience/trends of previous years when estimating likely demand.
The demand for temporary accommodation arises mainly from factors such as:
·Increasing enrolments
·Establishment of special units attached to mainstream schools
·Provision of additional teachers (mainstream, remedial, resource etc.) in mainstream schools
·Expansion of recently established Gaelscoileanna and Multi-denominational schools.
The allocations of additional teachers to schools is not known when estimates for temporary accommodation are being prepared .
The Accounting Officer provided details of the number of grant sanctions in respect of temporary accommodation and minor grants and costs arising therefrom for the years 2000 to 15 August 2003. It can be seen that the number of sanctions for temporary accommodation was significantly higher in 2002 than for the previous two years and would have been impossible to anticipate.
Table 7.15 Grants for Temporary Accommodation and Emergency Works
|
Temporary accommodation
|
Minor Grants
|
Year
|
No. of Grants
|
€m
|
No. of Grants
|
€m
|
2000
|
15
|
1.3
|
731
|
43.5
|
2001
|
158
|
5.5
|
1247
|
49.9
|
2002
|
296
|
17.3
|
1474
|
46.7
|
2003 (to 15/8)
|
112
|
12.8
|
545
|
21.4
|
Correspondence Issues
In response to my queries about the issue of letters to school authorities advising them of the inclusion of their project in the 2002 programme, the Accounting Officer said that the Department contacts schools advising them of the progress of their individual projects. He confirmed that the objective of the letters was to advise that the projects would be included in the 2002 Building Programme. Some of these projects were to proceed to tender and construction in early 2002 and others were scheduled to proceed to tender in late 2002. He stated, however, that it became clear in late 2002 that the 2003 funding allocation was insufficient to allow all projects to proceed to tender and construction.
In late 2002/early 2003, the school building programme was reviewed in the context of the 2003 funding allocation. This process led to the 2003 school building programme which was published in January 2003. Projects could only be allowed to advance where the funding was available to meet the consequential costs. This meant that some projects, originally intended to go to tender and construction in late 2002/early 2003, could not be included in the 2003 programme.
Post Primary Specific issues
Analysis of under spend in post primary projects
The Accounting Officer provided an analysis of the reasons which gave rise to an underspend on the projects originally provided for in the Vote for Second Level and Further Education projects.
He informed me that approval for the large-scale projects on the 2002 programme of works came later in the year than would have been preferred, with large-scale projects in particular not being approved until the end of the first quarter.
The time gap between allowing a major project to go to tender and funding being disbursed in respect of the project has become rather protracted for post primary projects in recent years.
Inevitably, in the course of implementing a capital programme, projects fall away. Projects may have to be deferred pending more in-depth planning because detailed analysis of the scope of works may vary relative to the preliminary assessment.
He stated, however, that he expected that these difficulties could be eliminated by procuring a four to five-year envelope of funding.
Temporary accommodation
The Accounting Officer stated that the current Minister for Education and Science had made it clear that, schools in poor quality accommodation or requiring additional accommodation would have to accept Departmental offers of temporary accommodation. These views were prompted by evidence that some schools, having refused offers of temporary accommodation, were orchestrating high-profile media campaigns to pressurise the Department into providing improved permanent facilities without reference to the prioritisation system. He further stated that there is clear evidence that schools are now accepting offers of temporary accommodation, thus increasing the level of expenditure in this area.
Timeframe for delivery of projects
The Accounting Officer pointed out that the absence of ring fenced multi-annual funding is a significant obstacle to providing any school managerial authority with an indicative timeframe for the delivery of accommodation. He went on to list the factors which impact on the timeliness of completing projects
Site acquisition: Identification of suitable sites, price negotiation, conveyancing delays, the pre-planning consultative process and agreement of planning charges with local authorities,
Agreeing the brief: Drafting schedules of overall accommodation, assessing the extent to which existing accommodation can be rendered suitable for future use and drafting schedules of any residual accommodation. Affording school managerial authorities the opportunity to consider and debate the proposed scope of works against proposals emanating from the Department.
Appointment of a design team: The necessity to advertise for a design team pursuant to EU public procurement procedures,
Architectural planning: The architectural planning process can and does vary widely. It is easiest in a green-field site, but is more time-consuming in the case of extending an existing property or where matters relating to the integration with existing school buildings are involved. Listed status of some buildings has added to the complexity.
Planning permission issues: Third-party objections, appeals of planning decisions to An Bord Pleanála (including by the Department over unacceptable capital contributions demanded by local authorities).
Fire Officer's Certificate: Usually takes two to three months to obtain.
Tendering: The tendering process can take a number of months, with added delays for the production by the contractor of bonds, insurances and mandatory contract guarantees and notice to local authorities of intent to go on site.
There is inherent difficulty in predicting accurately the speed with which a project will proceed through the planning stages. To provide a school management authority with even an indicative time frame that could be seriously eroded through circumstances and conditions completely outside of the control of the Department is considered to be imprudent.
He instanced that two projects of equal band rating could commence architectural planning on the same day but one of them might have slowed so significantly that it would not be ready for inclusion in a particular year's major works programme alongside the other. It could be the case that a project of lesser priority might proceed more quickly and take its place.