A view from an infrastructure practitioner

The reason why our results arise is undoubtedly a topic for debate. Drawing on our experience in the schools markets, I thought that I would kick off the discussion by sharing some of my views on the subject.

Appropriate building maintenance in PFI projects is not optional, but mandated. In the past local authorities could choose whether to spend budgets on teaching or on the school buildings. In some cases this could lead to allocating more to end service provision while neglecting the maintenance of the facility. PFI has emerged partly to address this underinvestment in bricks and mortar. It is not possible to run a PFI school into the ground, given the contractual mechanism in place. If we believe that maintaining the quality of the environment in which the teaching takes place can have a positive effect on teaching outcomes, this rebalancing of expenditures may offer one possible explanation.

The process of approving a potential investment as well as reaching financial close on a PFI deal can sometimes appear laborious, given the procedures involved. This could mean that more thought is given to budget allocation as well as how it is to be spent most effectively. Project financiers scrutinise contractual documentation in depth to ensure that specific risk flow-down structures are embedded in projects.

This prudence might indirectly have an impact on educational outcomes.

Is it also possible that the initial designs of PFI schools are more conducive to learning? The teachers and other stakeholders are consulted extensively leading up to financial close. The input provided in the design stages could be having the desired impact later on. Does this happen in greater depth than it might with conventional design and build schools?

The commercial incentives in PFI should ensure that contractors complete the construction works as scheduled by the contract. There is no payment from the public sector before a school is operational. If conventionally procured construction works have overrun and the teaching has to take place while building operations are still running, this will not help. It might be that PFI construction practices are less disruptive, as such disturbances to the running of the facility incur direct financial penalties.

The arrangements in PFI contracts bring dedicated facilities management staff into the school premises. This allows teachers to focus on teaching,

as they no longer have to worry about blocked drains, etc. This increased focus could explain some of our results. It is also possible that the presence of a third party - for example, the facilities management contractor on site - redefines the relationship between teachers and pupils by introducing a new type of accountability. This may be one of the factors at play.

I do appreciate that all of the above will be hotly debated and that evidence for any of the possible explanations is anecdotal at best. We believe it is useful to have the debate, however, and we look forward to having discussions with you on the topic.

Robert Griggs

Head of Social Infrastructure KPMG in the UK