Decision Maker: Cabinet Procurement and Insourcing Committee

Outcome: For Determination

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: December 1, 2025

Purpose: The contract award is to recommend the appointment of a contractor for the delivery of the Stoke Newington School Additional Resource Provision project. The project will involve a refit of the Daniel House building, to deliver a 30-student Additional Resource Provision with classrooms and therapeutic spaces. Part of the project will also provide spaces for the schools Media Suite requirements, including a Green Screen and Hybrid and Foley Studio.

Content: RESOLVED: To approve the proposal to appoint Contractor C as a Design and Build Contractor to deliver, at Stoke Newington School from RIBA Stage 3+ onwards, an Additional Resourced Provision for 30 pupils and a media suite.   Reasons For Decision    The report outlines the tendering process behind the Stoke Newington School - Creation of Additional Resource Provision, which has determined the winning bidder to be Contractor C. The report serves as a recommendation for awarding the contract to Contractor C.   The contractor is procured to deliver a 30 student additional resource provision, which will provide a creative curriculum including classrooms and therapeutic facilities. The contractor will also deliver the facilities that are financed by Stoke Newington School, which is the school’s media suite facilities, including the Green Screen, Hybrid and Foley Studios, editing suite, and a cafe.   The contractor will deliver the project to the detail set out in the Employer’s Requirements. This will include installing sustainable technology including Photovoltaics.   The contractor has been selected based on their project experience in schools, design and build projects and SEN experience and their response to meeting the requirements within their tender submission in relation to the Council's social and sustainability criteria (including LLW, providing apprenticeships and social value benefits, environmental policy, recycling and carbon emissions management). The report will provide further context on the winning contractor’s bid.   Alternative Options Considered and Rejected   a)  In-house provision: Due to the specialist nature of the works, LBH does not have the capability, capacity or skills to deliver the construction or consultancy for the project in-house.   b)  Undertake open tendering exercise: The complex nature of this work does not lend itself to the necessity of an open tendering process. The procurement team recommended the use of the CCS Framework Lot 1.2.2 to access a number of prequalified tenderers. A higher number of applicants would not necessarily result in greater savings compared to a selective tender process. There is also the added risk of companies bidding that do not meet the quality standards required, both procurement elements would unnecessarily impact the project timeline. Additionally, the evaluation process would not be an efficient use of time for either the contractor or our team. There is also quality / deliverability risk over CCS where the approved list of the Framework have been extensively assured.   c)  Direct Award to Contractor: This method would not demonstrate competition, and is unlikely to deliver the value for money which can be demonstrated through a competitive exercise in compliance with the Council’s Contract Standing Orders.   d) Use of lots: This option of division into Lots is not recommended due to the size of the project. A single contractor procurement will achieve economies of scale as this will require only one set of prelims and reduce site set up and management costs. This would result in significant use of client resources through several tendering exercises and client management. A single contractor is likely to be able to control the programme rather than the coordination of handover of the site to different contractors.   e)  Do nothing: This option is not recommended due to the strategic requirement for the project as set out in the Education Sufficiency and Estate Strategy (2022-2031). The creation of the provision is considerably less costly to the council than placing children in a Special school or travelling to school out of the borough.