Behind the headlines: PFI & schools (Part 2)

The debate on the effectiveness of PFI and whether needs are met would benefit greatly from data on contractual compliance and deductions.

In the second of our series of blogs tackling some of the key questions we have seen in the media around PFI and schools, we are looking at accusations that contract providers are failing to deliver the services that are required by schools.

Are the needs of the headteachers being met by the contract providers? If not, why not? 

The reality is every contract is different, and it is impossible to say categorically whether the needs of users are being met across hundreds of PFIs without: 

• reviewing the reporting from providers; 

• reviewing and potentially auditing the contracts; and 

• speaking to the parties involved. 

For too long the view of PFI has been coloured by those eager to take extreme examples of performance from one project, and assume this to be representative of the performance of all 700+ PFIs. The debate on the effectiveness of PFI and whether needs are met would benefit greatly from data on contractual compliance and deductions. The Government Commercial Function decided in the aftermath of Carillion to publish KPI data on the performance of all ‘Gold Contracts’; why can’t the same be done on PFI contracts by sponsor departments with PFI oversight, or the Infrastructure and Projects Authority?

There may be differences under some contracts between the actual needs of contracting authorities and their end users (Local Authorities and school Headteachers, for example), and what is in the contract. This is especially the case where needs have changed over the term and the contracts have not been varied by the parties to meet evolving needs. It is very important that the parties meet and vary the scope and terms (including authority requirements and KPIs) of the contract in line with formal processes so that changes in response to need. Many contracts specifically allow for this process on a regular basis. If needs are not being met, it is either the case that they are no longer appropriately captured in the contract, or if they are, that providers are not meeting the needs as set out in the contract. Where providers are not complying with the contract, the mechanisms under the contract should be used to determine deductions and drive service improvement.

The recent White Fraiser Review of the industry identified that there is sometimes a failure by the public sector to correctly distinguish between self reporting and self monitoring. Our view at Curshaw is that providers must accurately report performance but that it is the job of Contracting Authorities to subject those reports to scrutiny, assure them and where necessary undertake audits in line with the processes set out in the contract. We also believe that reporting by providers needs to be improved so that it is more data driven, user-friendly and insightful, and crucially drives the focus and attention of performance and liaison meetings. 

This enables parties working together to drive service improvements and respond as effectively as possible to operational pressures and challenges.